To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

October 19, 2006

October 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 19, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 2:00 P.M .

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning , Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Jonathan Purvis, Scott Sanchez, Elizabeth Watty, Dan Dibartolo, Ken Rich, Lisa Gibson, Tim Frye, Rick Crawford, Michelle Glueckert, Kate Conner, Isolde Wilson, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2006.0897D (A.STARR: (415) 558-6362)

3300 CLAY STREET - at the southeast corner of Clay Street and Presidio Avenue, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0997- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.27.5519proposing to remove the ground floor storage area of a six-unit residential building, excavate a portion of the ground floor, and install a 6-car garage with a 10' wide garage door on Presidio Avenue. The existing building is a four-story, six-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the project as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2006)

(Proposed for continuance to November 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

2a. 2006.0318DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

257-259 4TH Avenue - west side between Clement and Cornwall Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1429 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.18.9249, proposing to legalize the construction of a carport at the front of the building; the replacement of the exterior front staircase to unit 2 on the second floor; the reconfiguration of the exterior rear staircase to the second floor, and the enclosure of space under the second floor sunroom and a portion of the deck, for an existing two-story, two-unit building, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

2b. 2005.0318DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

257-259 4th Avenue - west side between Clement and Cornwall Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1429 - Request for Front Setback, Rear Yard, Screening of Parking Areas and Non-Complying Structure Variances to allow the legalization of (1) construction of an unscreened parking pad within the required front setback; (2) replacement of the exterior front staircase to unit 2 on the second floor that would extend approximately 8 feet into the required front setback; (3) reconfiguration of the exterior rear staircase to the second floor that would extend approximately 12 feet into the required rear yard; and (4) the enclosure of space under the second floor sunroom and a portion of the deck at the rear of the building that would extend 9 to 12 into the required rear yard. Because the existing building already extends approximately 9 feet into the required rear yard, it is considered a legal, non-complying structure. The project site is in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

3. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

- I received the housing inventory for the city and I thought it would be good to comment on it.

- Some points are made on the need for low income housing for residents.

- They quote that there were only 3,999 very low-income units built in San Francisco for the last 10 years.

- Our housing inventory says that 3,196 units were built in 2005 of this number 14 percent were for medium income.

- I looked for the projects in the pipeline and we have projected 3,200 affordable units and 5,400 market-rate units.

- I wonder why we have these differences on these numbers.

- What the City inventory does not address is that last year we only built 46 single-family homes.

- We have to be really grounded on what has been happening as we go forward.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I think we all received the internal memorandum with respect to the reorganization and additions of the new department staff with the managers that were added to the department recently.

  1. It would be interesting to me to see an organizational chart that shows the Manager system that melds in the rest of the department.
  2. Something to show from the Director and shift down [quadrant planners (or Team Leaders) and staff under them]

Commissioner Antonini

- We did send a letter to the Board of Supervisors – to the attention to Supervisors Maxwell and McGoldrick.

- It asked that, as requested, we have a public hearing on community improvements for the Eastern Neighborhoods.

  1. That request was denied 10 - 1.

Commissioner Moore

- I would like for us to get an update on the Environmental Impact Report, the California Environmental Quality Act and all processes dealing with environmental review.

  1. There have been so many changes.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

  1. Director's Announcements

None

5. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

Dan Sider – Planning Department Staff reported on Board of Supervisors:

  1. As Commissioner Antonini eluded to earlier, the first matter that we want to bring to your attention is the letter with respect to Supervisor McGoldrick requesting that the Board take no further action and the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for your review.
  2. While the matter was finally passed 10 –1 at the Board, President Peskin acknowledged the important role played by the Planning Commission and initiated a change to Board rules such that all amendments to the Administrative Code that pertains to Planning be referred to the Planning Commission for its review.
  3. We will keep tabs on that and be sure to let you know. Clearly this is something we are very interested in and are sympathetic towards.
  4. There were three more items, all of which were relatively brief:
  5. Supervisor Ma introduced the granting of new massage permits to the Health Department. We play a role in this process with respect to land use consideration only.
  6. There were two final notes. Both are landmark tree designations.
  7. One was put forth by Supervisor Dufty on 23rd Street between Diamond and Castro Street – a 100 year old oak tree. The second was by McGoldrick on 19th & Balboa

Zoning Administrator reported on Board of Appeals:

  1. Commissioners, there was one item at the Board of Appeals yesterday that I think is rather important.
  2. We had a violation on 2395 12th Avenue. It is a residential building in the avenues.
  3. It was being used as what can be characterized as a sweatshop.
  4. It was converted to a clothing factory.
  5. The residential nature had been stripped out and the garage was being used as a work area with sewing machines and storage of fabric and goods – things of that nature.
  6. It was heard on September 20th, almost a month ago.
  7. The project owner said that they had cured all the violations.
  8. The Board continued it to yesterday. On September 22nd, we went out and found continued violations.
  9. On September 20 the sponsor says everything is okay.
  10. But on September 22, we still find violations.
  11. At the end of last week I got a notice from the Board of Appeals that there was a request fro continuance of this matter and asking me if I agreed with it.
  12. My practice generally is where the Commission has denied something or a variance has been denied and someone wants to continue, I don't see any harm.
  13. But where there is a violation, if you continue the item, you would then be continuing the violation.
  14. I did not comply with the continuance.
  15. I figure they can go in front of the Board of Appeals, and they [the sponsor] can accept what the Board says.
  16. The Project Sponsor was heated and said he was involved in a judicial matter.
  17. I requested further information. All I got was plane tickets, etc.
  18. I could not get any information related to it being a government matter that required him to be somewhere.
  19. At least one Board member was inclined to grant the continuance until they learned it wasn't a one-week continuance. It was a three-week continuance.
  20. The Board upheld the violation 4 – 0. One commissioner was absent.
  21. I thought it was important to show you that we do pursue enforcement and sometimes we are successful.

    SPEAKERS:

Hiroshi Fukuda

  1. The letter that the Director referred to that was sent to the Board of Supervisors apparently took a while to be delivered.
  2. Because here you have 140 people in the Department and a request was made on Thursday by the Commission that is going to be acted upon one way or another by the following Tuesday.
  3. The letter gets to the Board on the afternoon on Monday and only gets there because someone in the community hand carries it to the Board of Supervisors.
  4. When do you know [think] your request would have been considered if it had been done through the normal distribution process?
  5. You need to ask yourself and consider carefully the issue that was raised earlier about how much time does the Commission have to respond to a referral from the Board of Supervisors?
  6. The whole battle here is not all about property rights or who's building something and blocking someone's view.
  7. The Coalition is coming back and speaking to you about your rights and authority to be exercised under the City Charter to have on all planning issues and matters before you.
  8. Here, you have an effort being made by the Board of Supervisors to basically, push everything under the Administrative Code.
  9. How long does it take Mr. Sider for the Department to review this?
  10. We have is the Department gets 90 days because it is referred by the Board of Supervisors according to the Planning Code.
  11. What we are trying to protect is the rights and the authority and responsibility of the Planning Commission to conduct its business so the public can proceed to help and provide the support in the public process.

Ms. Espanola Jackson

  1. I want to speak on the Supervisor's meeting that occurred last Tuesday.
  2. This was without Committee reference. That is how you get things done behind your back.
  3. Because they did not want it to be hard by you or the community.
  4. It was item 31. I know because one of the residents that was there had to be pulled by Supervisor Maxwell. And it was read. And you know what it was?
  5. It has to do with eminent domain on 2 acres of land.
  6. Please, do not be passing on things that have not been heard by the community or you because she says so.
  7. You got the responsibility. It's not up to her to make the decision for you and the entire City.

Tony Kelly

  1. I wanted to speak in reference to the comments of the others about what happened on Tuesday.
  2. It seems that this is a property issue. No one can do anything before talking to Planning first.
  3. It was done properly. It is for the Supervisors to consider. It was discussed at the Planning Commission. Yet there are individuals from the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods that say it's not enough.
  4. My association is a member of the Coalition.
  5. It was not brought to my association or brought to anyone in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  6. If they have a campaign of their own, it's these three individuals doing it themselves.
  7. They don't represent the Coalition or the Southern or Eastern Neighborhoods who need this legislation and more.

Francisco DA Costa

  1. I belong to the San Francisco Coalition of Neighborhoods.
  2. I participated in all the planning workshops regarding the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  3. This matter came before the Coalition as an emergency, because that way it was sneaked in. It was in a bad way.
  4. All I'm saying if you want to bring certain types of amendments, or certain types of policies linked to the Administrative Code, then we need to have a public discussion.
  5. These types of policies are sneaked in on a fast track and sent to the Board of Supervisors.
  6. We, the constituents, do not have a say. It is wrong for people to say this doesn't pertain to the Eastern Neighborhood.
  7. We have the right to introduce any type of amendments and legislations through our process within the Coalition.

No name

  1. Thank you for your action requesting an important plan on land use issues authored by Supervisors be sent back to you.
    I am sad by the Board of Supervisors action on last Tuesday, in response to your request for return of file 61206.
  2. I feel in particular that Supervisor McGoldrick's remarks were questionable.
  3. He said that the planning issue comes back for your hearing and response. That was the Eastern Neighborhood's policy and rezoning and community planning matter.
  4. Supervisor McGoldrick reported to all Supervisors present, that the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator were in support of the community legislation. And on Tuesday, in his comments, he implied that your [the Commission's] request was not appropriate.

Judy Berkowitz

  1. I would like to tell you that the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods unanimously passed two resolutions at our meeting on Tuesday. The second one I think that you have not been briefed on was that we urged the veto of the ordinance to the Mayor and that the Board refer it to the Planning Commission for your comment and review.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKERS:

Jim Salinas

  1. It's important that this Commission maintained vigilance where the PDR issue is concerned.
  2. There are businesses that want to come to the City, but feel the city is business unfriendly.
  3. This Commission has the ability to change that perception and make sure we are earning a livelihood.

Ms. Espanola Jackson

  1. The question I want to ask is whether or not you, the Commissioners, weighed in on the proposed earthquake plans that has been put together?
  2. Did you all discuss it with that committee about what would happen if there were an earthquake?
  3. I have a concern because they have here that staging areas would be set up for emergency supplies and equipment at AT&T Park, Candlestick Park, and Pier 48.
  4. It frightens me. People do not know that area. Candlestick Park - the whole area was built on landfill that used to be the bay.

Francisco Da Costa

  1. What I came to talk about was I know the Director of Planning is going to leave us and hopefully we get a good Director.
  2. I am also concerned about the Zoning Administrator, and I am also concerned about the role of our Chief Planner.
  3. I hope that when the new Director comes, that we have a better vision.
  4. What I have been saying is, we need a sound housing element.
  5. The other thing we need is the transportation document by the Planning Department not the Transportation Authority.

Calvin Welch

  1. I want to speak to the reference made by the Economic Development Committee and this Commission regarding the Housing Element target, the affordability target.
  2. If we force compliance with the Housing Element in the Eastern Neighborhood planning process we will be increasing the inclusionary zone requirement.
  3. For some reason this Department continues to only measure new construction in meeting the affordability goals even though the Housing Element of 2004 recognized acquisition and rehab especially in producing affordable units in San Francisco.
  4. The Housing Element ignored acquisition and rehab as a factor.
  5. This factor is cited as a reason. It is impossible to meet the affordability goals without them.

Tony Kelly

  1. Speaking more about hysteria surrounding the Maxwell resolution, which is not a controversial resolution. Why it causes this reaction by the Planning Commission? It is following the planning of the City.
  2. It has been said before that the resolution is attempting an end run around planning.
  3. Everything in the resolution about housing, about arts and opens space is actually included in the City's General Plan, which has had public and Commission review.
  4. Your job as commissioners is not to adjudicate planning issues, it is to implement the City's General Plan.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

6. 2006.0893C (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)

1099 Sunnydale Avenue - south side between Schwerin Street and Garrison Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 6363 (also known as 222 Schwerin Street and  Heritage Homes ) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 303(e) to modify Conditions of Approval under Motion No. 14737, adopted by the Planning Commission on November 19, 1999, requiring 18 off-street parking spaces within the garage of the community building known as  The Village. The current proposal would reduce the garage capacity to six spaces to accommodate an additional 3,600 sq. ft. of community space. Residential parking would not be affected. The site is part of a residential planned unit development known as  Heritage Homes, and is within the RM-1 (Residential, Mixed-Use, Low-density) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17322

7. 2006.1052ET (S. Sanchez: (415) 558-6326)

BOARD FILE NO. 061210 - ALLOWING ADVERTISING ON E-LINE AND THIRD STREET LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BOARDING PLATFORMS - Consideration of an ordinance initiated by SupervisorSophie Maxwell on August 15, 2006 which would amend Planning Code Section 603 to permit transit shelter advertising on public transit boarding platforms in connection with the E-Line and Third Street Light Rail projects by: 1) Amending Section 603 of the Planning Code to permit up to two double-sided panels not exceeding 24 square feet in area on each low-level boarding platform at the following E-Line stops: Folsom Street and The Embarcadero, Brannan Street and the Embarcadero, 2nd and King Streets, and 4th and King Streets; and a total of 71 double-sided general advertising signs each not exceeding 24 square feet in area on or adjacent to transit shelters on 28 publicly owned high level Municipal Railway boarding platforms serving the Third Street Light Rail Line. 2) Making and adopting environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17323

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2006.0896C (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

965-985 Geneva Avenue - north side, at the corner of Paris Street, Lot 028 (formerly known as Lots 005-010) on Assessor's Block 6409 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.83 and 790.80 to install six cellular panel antennas on the roof of an existing mixed-use (residential and commercial) building as part of a wireless transmission network operated by Verizon Wireless. The Project Site is located on a parcel with split zoning. The northern portion is located within the RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The southern portion is located within the NC-3 (Neighborhood, Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The building on which the antennas are located is completely within the NC-3 portion of the lot. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the site is a Preferred Location Preference 2 site as there is an existing legally permitted wireless facility at the site.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS:

James Singleton, Project Sponsor

  1. We had a misuse of colors on the map.
  2. The correct ones have been provided to staff this week. I hope they were delivered to you in your packets on time.
  3. On the existing map, you can see that there's a browned out area, which actually is in the area where there is not coverage.
  4. The intent of the project was explained well.

Tom Portland

  1. I am concerned about the six additional antennas put in there, running at 10.1 giga hertz.
  2. When they spike, they cause histamines in the body that cause asthma. And studies have shown that they start childhood leukemia.
  3. The extra six antennas are over kill in our neighborhood.

Lorenzo Garde, Chief Engineer

  1. I would like to request a delay on the approval of this request until we get more information.
  2. Over the last five or six years we have been experiencing interference with public safety communications.
  3. We can't co-exist so it will help if we know the frequencies Verizon will use.

Steve Currier - OMRA

  1. I want to let you know that the Executive Board approved this project in our organization.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17324

9a. 2006.0356CR (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558-6291)

766-776Vallejo Street - north side between Powell and Stockton Streets; Lot 043 in Assessor's Block130 - Request for a General Plan Referral to determine if the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility for Sprint PCS at the public garage and police stationis consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan

SPEAKERS:

Marian, Project Sponsor

  1. I represent Sprint on this conditional use application as well as the General Plan referral.
  2. I want to request you uphold staff's recommendations as well as the General Plan referral.
  3. We agree to all conditions.

Lorenzo Garde

  1. The issue we have with this plan is that we were not given any chance to review the frequencies.
  2. We are not opposed to the plan, generally. We would like to see the frequency used for the site so we can see what our potential interference is. The public safety radio systems exist and work with Nextel and Verizon and the others. So they don't use those before they happen.

MOTION: To continue to November 2, 2006

AYES: Olague and Moore

NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, and Sugaya

MOTION FAILED

ACTION: Approved as amended: The Building permit shall not be approved until the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services determines that there will be no interference with the City's emergency radio service.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, and Sugaya

NAYES: Moore and Olague

MOTION: 17235

9b. 2006.0356CR (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558-6291)

766-776Vallejo Street - north side between Powell and Stockton Streets; Lot 043 in Assessor's Block 130 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 722.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility for Sprint PCS within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial (NCD) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk district, upon the façade and at the roof of the approximately 67 foot high structure that contains a parking garage and police station. As per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2, as it is the site of previously approved antenna installations. As the subject property is a publicly owned structure, the Planning Commission for its consistency with the General Plan per a General Plan Referral application would also review the project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 9a.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, and Sugaya

NAYES: Moore and Olague

MOTION: 17236

10. (K. RICH: (415) 558-6345)

INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION ON THE SCHLAGE LOCK PLANNING PROCESS - Informational presentation on past and current planning activities related to the former Schlage Lock site in Visitacion Valley. Staff will briefly review the creation of a community concept plan for redevelopment of this approximately 20-acre site, as well as current efforts to refine the concept plan to inform a potential redevelopment project area. No action required.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Meeting held. No action required.

11. 2006.1221E (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

Amendment of Administrative Code Chapter 31 [Board File No. 061311] - Informational Presentation. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Ma amending Administrative Code Chapter 31 provisions for appeals of environmental documents and determinations to the Board of Supervisors under the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as public notice of such determinations and environmental documents.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution supporting Board adoption of the ordinance, with Department-recommended modifications.

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

  1. I want to focus my time on changes I think need to be made that deal with your operations.
  2. In the golden years, 10 years ago, the Planning Commission did "Intent to Approve" resolutions rather than amend on the fly. That allowed them to have the exact language they approved and the exact plans.
  3. When that's the case, it's easy to make an appeal because you know what the resolution and the project are.
  4. At the same time, the State law requirement allowed appeals to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission changed their practice and said, we are macho and we will amend on the fly.
  5. What has happened is that resolutions are not available sometimes for weeks.
  6. I have had them not available for six weeks after the action.
  7. Therefore, when you appeal a project like I have done, you don't' have an approval resolution.
  8. You don't have the approval resolution on the environmental document.
  9. The time lines are tight for an appeal.
  10. An appeal has to state your grounds for appeal.
  11. If you don't know how the project is modified, it might affect the environmental appeal and you are up a creek without a paddle.
  12. What I am suggesting that this Commission do is either recommend changing the deadline for appeals to when the final resolution on the environmental and project approval is complete. That is when the clock starts running, or you should change your practice.

Robert Pender

  1. I don't think the public has enough opportunity or knowledge of when you cut down on the opportunity for the general public.
  2. I think we need more openness.
  3. I would like to add my voice to making the procedures more open and more accessible to us ordinary citizens, who will live with the results.

Steve Williams

  1. CEQA is our main tool for protecting historical resources in the City. Without that and the procedure to use that in an effective way, we are really lost.
  2. Almost always the Department will issue a Categorical Exemption for those projects.
  3. Without a procedure to use to appeal the Department's decisions as well as the developer's project, we are lost.
  4. I think that this a bad legislation for much of the reasons you just heard.
  5. Is it intentionally to make it difficult for neighbors and people in the public to bring the appeals or understand they need to bring these appeals?
  6. This legislation sets up short deadlines, 10, 30 and 90 days in a situation where we have no deadlines until the project is under way or the permits are issued.

John Bardis

  1. The whole criteria by which legislation is done - as we have seen by looking at the end run being done with the Administrative Code - with the plan process and so forth is a similar axiom that's referred to where there are three criteria for making a real estate decision which is location, location, and location.
  2. In City Hall there are three criteria for legislation: process, process, process.
  3. You have here another kind of process issue where people who are covered in trying to introduce modifications that in effect take away the rights of people to emphasize not for their personal information but for your own edification.

ACTION: Continued to October 26, 2006

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Olague, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

12. 2006.0571L (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

3750 18th Street - MISSION HIGH SCHOOL - Bounded by Dolores, Church, 18th, and Dorland Streets. Recommendation from the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to adopt a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisor's the Landmark Designation of Mission High School as Landmark No. 255. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as amended: to include language that stipulates that all architectural features under the east/west courtyards and the courtyard spaces themselves are protected. The same stipulation should apply for the entry and fixtures. It should also be applied to the auditorium.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

RESOLUTION 17327

13. 2005.0570D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1750 8th Avenue - east side between Moraga and Noriega Streets. Assessor's Block 2042 Lot 002H - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.28. 5368, to construct a new third story on the existing dwelling and to develop a second dwelling unit. The addition will not extend any further to the front or rear than the existing dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the Project.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

14. 2006.0751D (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

223-225 9TH STREET - northeast side between Howard and Tehama Streets; Lot 079 in Assessor's Block 3729 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Code Section 890.133(h) requiring review of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCDs), of Building Permit Application 2005.03.29.8691, to maintain operation of an existing MCD (d.b.a.  HopeNet Co-Op ). The property is located within a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) Mixed Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.

SPEAKERS:

Wayne Justmann

  1. Hope Net is a good cannabis facility. They have served our City and their neighborhood well.
  2. Much before the existence of Hope Net, the energy that Steve and Kathy Smith have brought to the medical cannabis community says great things about these two individuals and this facility.
  3. They have put together a wonderful staff that understands the needs of the patients.
  4. This should be approved. It is in the best interest of our community and the best interest of the City.

Michelle Aldrich

  1. I am speaking for Hope Net. It is one of the model dispensaries for the whole City.
  2. Steve and Kathy are great people.
  3. A lot of the patients live in Section 8 housing, and they can't medicate at home.
  4. These people feel safe at Hope Net.
  5. The whole neighborhood feels safer because Hope Net is there
  6. I hope you will vote for it.

Richard Muller

  1. I met Steve and Kathy a year and a half ago. Since then, I have gone to their facility.
  2. Before we had access to go to Hope Net we met a group, the Patients Health Defense Union.
  3. A lot of us were poor, the prices of normal clubs were above what we could afford for our medicine.

Rose Kenyon

  1. I am a medical cannabis patient.
  2. I've been in this area for 40 plus years and have been prescribed many different types of medications for the health issues that I have.
  3. I find that medical marijuana is best for me.
  4. I feel that since we have voted to have medical marijuana in the City, it's almost a travesty and a slap in the face that we have to deal with issues that are outside of being able to medicate at any time.
  5. These dispensaries are being eliminated.
  6. They are well established and reputable and not fly-by-night establishments. They do give compassion. And in our language that is no cost medication or little cost.
  7. I recommend that you take the proposal of your staff.

John Caldera

  1. I am a United States Navy Veteran and a California card-carrying member and I have lived with HIV since November of 1995.
  2. Medical cannabis has helped keep me alive.
  3. I am here to speak on behalf of Hope Net, which is a phenomenal dispensary.
  4. They have done a lot for the community.
  5. I ask you to allow them to continue the services to so many patients in the community.

Terrie Frye

  1. I'd like to say that I am grateful to Kathy and Steve Smith for the priorities of the Hope Net dispensary and for their donations to me.
  2. I have been able to quit taking medicine for depression, which didn't work anyway.
  3. I am not taking them anymore and I am not depressed.
  4. The only thing that would depress me now is if you didn't permit them to stay open.

Rev. Randi Webster

  1. Hope Net is a model facility through compassion and community awareness and their striving to be better in helping patients.
  2. They care for their patients and open their doors to everyone.
  3. Please, do not take discretionary review.
  4. They are doing a fine job.

Cathy Smith

  1. I am the owner and operator of Hope Net
  2. We are here to hopefully obtain the community's consent to operate.
  3. It's our goal to continue our compassion program to the terminally ill and we want to help as many as we can.
  4. We would like to thank the businesses and the community for their support and we would like to thank you people, the Planning Commission.
  5. We really have been a community minded organization.
  6. We would like to continue to be an organization that can service the community and we want you to let us keep operating and helping these nice people in San Francisco.

Johnny Nolen

  1. When I became involved with the medical cannabis community, I realized I was helping the direct needs of the patients by obligating myself to a political movement to protect the rights of the patients.
  2. I met caregivers and listened to different people on how we can be integrated into San Francisco.
  3. I was impressed by their services and professionalism and community awareness.
  4. Hope Net helps San Francisco's largest compassion program by supplying medicine to severely ill patients.
  5. This is an important precedence to set with no insurance covered medical cannabis.

Shona - Executive Director of a patient advocacy organization.

  1. I am nervous out of excitement that our City can be a model for the nation.
  2. We believe that Hope Net co-op should be a statement and standard for all to follow in this process, because of their unbelievable compassion program.
  3. We want permitted low impact costs for people with fixed income.
  4. They offer their space to the Women's Health Collective and other community groups.
  5. I believe the permitting of this compassionate co-op in San Francisco becoming the model for the nation.

Leslie Thomas

  1. I am a patient that uses medical marijuana.
  2. I have gone to Hope Net on 9th Street in order to obtain my medicine since they first opened.
  3. I feel comfortable going to Hope Net because they have made a conscious effort to make the neighborhood a clean and safe environment.
  4. My experience with Hope Net has been from a patient's perspective instead of a customer.
  5. I am treated like a patient not as a customer.
  6. My needs have been valued with compassion toward a patient.
  7. Your consideration to allow Hope Net to remain at their current location will be much appreciated.

Robert Carlton

  1. I am here to speak in support of Hope Net.
  2. I have been a patient and also associated with them for as long as they have been open.
  3. They are the most compassionate club in San Francisco.

Tony Bowles

  1. I am a neighbor to Hope Net.
  2. I run a bookstore next door.
  3. I have seen how, since Hope Net opened, that element in that location is reduced.
  4. I would like to say that patients and supporters in San Francisco united in the face of losing everything have fought hard to protect – a patient's right to legally obtain medical cannabis.
  5. In closing I would like to say, give medical cannabis a chance. Give Hope Net a chance.

Michael Aldrich

  1. Hope Net has been there for three years with no complaints. It has met all the requirements of the new regulations.
  2. They are taking care of a hundred patients, absolutely free.
  3. It's a historical building. They spent sums of money to make it accessible.
  4. This will be the first medical cannabis dispensary approved by the Planning Commission.

Dana Blackford

  1. I have sustained brain injury in my life, which has lead to my inability of accomplishing many things.
  2. The fact that I started using cannabis has alleviated many of my stresses.
  3. I would think it would be frivolous of you to close them down.

Jim Meko

  1. Isn't it a blessed relieved that unlike the last time you took DR on a medical cannabis club that this is so much more positive of an experience?
  2. We don't have this divisiveness between those complaining with the drugged criminal element on the one hand and the belittling yuppies on the other hand.
  3. I ask strongly that you approve this permit as recommended by staff.

Bruce Allison

  1. Please give these guys a chance. They run a clean and decent dispensary.

ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

15. 2006.0834D (K. CONNER: (415) 575-5974)

1878 40TH AVENUE - east side between Noriega Street and Ortega Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 2076 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.03.4585, proposing construction of a two-story horizontal addition to the rear of the subject dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications

SPEAKERS:

Josephine, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. My husband and I are the requestors. We live next door and have lived there for 22 years and were happy until the time we had the backyard flooded because of heavy rain.
  2. It's never a pleasant experience to wade in cold water in winter to drain buckets of water.
  3. In June, when we found the owners plan on extending 20 feet in the rear, we were very upset.
  4. If our yard were as long as theirs, we would have no problem with that length.
  5. Unfortunately our yard is short. The project would leave not enough space for good air to circulate.
  6. In order to allow our neighbors to expand and to have less negative impact on us the best solution would be to modify the project plan.
  7. We suggest two modifications: 1) setback the south wall 6-1/2 feet on both levels. This will allow them to keep their existing door downstairs and the door upstairs; 2) keep the length to 14 feet. This length matches the adjacent property's extension and is in tune with the neighborhood.
  8. With this extension the project owner would have a huge master bedroom of 14 x 18 and ½ feet.
  9. If the project is not setback on the ground floor, we would feel devastated from our second floor window. We would look at a wall and a dirty roof.

Jeffrey Chin

  1. The sponsor is willing to listen to the recommendations of the staff.
  2. We were willing to reduce it, give it a 3 foot setback on the south side and setback 5 feet as staff requires and install windows on the second floor six feet from the floor in accordance with staff's request.
  3. The project sponsor needs more space.
  4. The belief is that the addition is not taking up all of the space he could take.
  5. The issue they have with the flooding on the side that's a structural issue and has nothing to do with the planning and the plans being proposed.
  6. The construction will be done so the rain comes out of the rear of the house.

Mike Chan

  1. My brother, my sister, and my parents have lived in this house since the 90's.
  2. It is a 2-bedroom house. We were cramped. Now that I am married and have a baby with us, we are even more cramped for space.
  3. We can't afford to buy anything in the City.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved per staff recommendation

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Olague, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

16. 2006.1085D (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

244 32ND AVENUE - east Side between California and El Camino del Mar; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1391 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.06.23.4870, proposing to alter the existing second floor roofline; add a penthouse with roof deck towards the rear of the building. The property is located within an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

SPEAKERS:

Nicole, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Our family came to San Francisco in the 1880;s and they fell in love with this country and wanted to stay. They struggled for many years and during World War II they lost everything they had to build it back again.
  2. It was with great sacrifices and work and dedication that they are able to build themselves to the level they are and be able to purchase a home in San Francisco.
  3. They were not allowed to rent or buy homes in certain areas of the City back then.
  4. I don't think it was City law. It was exclusionary. A social injustice.
  5. They chose that home because it's a peaceful place.
  6. We will loose our light and view and privacy on that side of the house if their project is able to build up on the third level.
  7. I wish we could some how figure a way out where we could both be happy.
  8. I suggested they build in the front of their house, so they can get the same new area in their home, as if they built the penthouse there and it will not interfere with my view, privacy, light and space.

No name

  1. Former speaker is my sister and we both live in the house.
  2. I would like to say the decision to come forward was not an easy one for her or me. It was really difficult for us.
  3. We are not confrontational people and we struggled with this.
  4. We didn't want to cause waves or step on anyone's toes.
  5. We really did try to consider whether we could live with this addition so close to us.
  6. The proposed extension is tall - almost 13 feet vertical elevation of the existing structure.
  7. It would block a good portion of the direct light entering our bedroom and block entirely our view of Lincoln Park Golf Course.
  8. In addition, we would be loosing the privacy we enjoy in our home and backyard with the neighbors boarding our property.
  9. In San Francisco the open space and privacy is relished and it's a treasure.

Jonathan, Architect for the project

  1. Gave a brief description of the project.

Michael Saksteder, Project Sponsor

  1. We like our neighborhood and neighbors and tried hard to be sensitive to everybody's needs, while still getting what we thought we could get out of what we think is a modest project.
  2. We were sensitive to our neighbor's needs in the planning and design of the project and in the approval process of the project.
  3. We oriented the project so it was angled such that it didn't block the views of our neighbor.
  4. We did not build it as large as it could have been because we didn't want to disrupt or impact the neighborhood.
  5. In the approval process we tried to make sure we got the entire neighborhood input we could.
  6. It's at a point now where it's significantly delaying our project to be asking for input on the project when we provided opportunity for that input some significant time ago.
  7. I also think that the privacy concern that's been raised is not an issue.
  8. We are trying to be good neighbors and we have tried to do the project right.

Bryan Eckert

  1. I live at 259 32nd Avenue across from the subject property.
  2. I am in full support of the proposed project.
  3. I think it's an enhancement to the neighborhood.

ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2006. The public hearing remains open.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Olague, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) Directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS:
Robert Pender

  1. [Introduced his organization and gave out newsletters.]

Adjournment: 7:28 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 19, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

ABSENT: W. Lee

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:24 PM