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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco
May 12, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 12, 2005
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Dwight Alexander, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee, Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:42 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian - Deputy City Attorney; Amit Ghosh; Craig Nikitas; Jonathan Purvis; Michael Li; Geoffrey Nelson; Delvin Washington; Mary Woods; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. 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. 2005.0219Z (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT AND BULK DESIGNATIONS FOR ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 0139, 0140, AND 0141 (BOUNDED BY BATTERY STREET, VALLEJO STREET, EMBARCADERO AND BROADWAY) - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco, Sheet 1H, to change the height and bulk designation of Assessor's Block 0139 from 84-E to 40-X and to change the height and bulk designations of Assessor's Blocks 0140 and 0141 from 84-E to 65-X, and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 26, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 26, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        2. 2004.1067C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        33-35 MOSS STREET - east side between Howard Street and Folsom Street, Lot 67 in Assessor's Block 3731 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow the demolition of two dwelling units within the South of Market Base District under Planning Code Sections 813.13 and 803.5(b). The subject is within an RED (Residential Enclave) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

            (Proposed for Continuance to June 2, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        3a. 2005.0105CV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        134 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Leavenworth and Jones Streets; Lot 003 Assessor's Block 0344 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to legalize the conversion of the existing two-story over basement commercial structure to a nonprofit social service facility ("Hyde Street Community Services, Inc.") at all floor levels. Specifically, the project legalizes the premises for use of a nonprofit agency that holds contracts with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to provide daytime mental health services to an adult population, and requires Conditional use authorization for operation of such use at the second floor level per Section 209.3(d) of the Planning Code. No physical expansion of the building is proposed. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High-Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District #1 and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

            (Proposed for Continuance to June 2, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

      3b. 2005.0105CV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        134 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Leavenworth and Jones Streets; Lot 003 Assessor's Block 0344 - Off-Street Parking Variance sought in association with the project that legalizes the conversion of the existing two-story over basement commercial structure to a nonprofit social service facility ("Hyde Street Community Services, Inc.") at all floor levels. The uses proposed would require a maximum of 85 off-street parking spaces, with a credited deficiency of thirteen, and a net requirement of 72 off-street spaces, where none are proposed. The application for variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High-Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District #1 and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District.

        (Proposed for Continuance to June 2, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        4. 2004.0858C (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        766 VALLEJO 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 AT&T Wireless Service, roof-mounted on the existing building comprising a parking garage and police station. Under the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the property is a Preferred Location Preference 2, as a co-location site of previously approved antenna installations. The proposal is to install six panel antennas at three different locations on the roof of the approximately 67-foot high building. Related equipment would be placed on the fourth floor level within the parking garage a basement storage area. The property is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005)

        (Proposed for Continuance to July 7, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 7, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        5. 2004.0220E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)

        1840 WASHINGTON STREET - Assessor's Block 0599, Lot 008 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 45,238-gross-square-foot (gsf), eight-story, 80-foot-high residential building, which would include about 31,868 gsf of residential use (29 dwelling units), and 13,370 gsf of parking (35 off-street parking spaces). The proposed project would also include the demolition of an existing 7,500 gsf, one-story-plus-mezzanine building formerly occupied by Teevan Restoration. The approximately 7,021-square-foot (sf) project site is located mid-block on the north side of Washington Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. The site is zoned RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined District, High Density) and is in the Van Ness Special Use District, and an 80-D height and bulk district. The proposed project would require conditional use authorization for new construction exceeding 40 feet in height in the Van Ness Special Use District, and a variance for one unit, which would not meet the dwelling unit exposure requirement.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005)

            (Proposed for Continuance to July 14, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 14, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      6. Consideration of Adoption - Draft minutes from March 31, 2005.

      (Continued from the Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        EXCUSED: Alexander

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        Re: Rincon Hill Plan

        - He requested that the Commission Secretary write a letter commending the staff who worked on this plan and that a copy of this letter be placed in their personnel files.

        Re: Article in Sunday's Chronicle (5/8/05) titled: The Ephemeral City, San Francisco has lost its middle class, become a 'theme park for restaurants,' and is the playground of the nomadic rich and restless leeches living off them by Joel Kotkin

        - This article brings up interesting points.

        - Most of the City will be developed in the next few years. Is this what the City will look like in the year 2020?

        - Is the City going to rely on tourism only? Is the middle class going to be lost? Is the City taking the right approach in doing planning for the next two or three years?

        - He requested that the Planning Department provide some guidance. Perhaps the person who wrote this article can come to the Planning Commission and provide a question and answer session.

            Interim Director Macris responded:

            - He read the article also.

            - John King wrote a response to Mr. Kotin's article.

            - When one generalizes as Mr. Kotkin did, there is only a grain of truth.

            - Various speakers could be invited. Although some might request a fee but something can be arranged.

        Commission Antonini:

        - He would like the department to proceed [with setting something up.

        Commissioner S. Lee:

        - She feels that it is a worthy topic to discuss. Maybe a larger forum should be planned.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        - Perhaps the author could be contacted and find out about fees and available dates and get this information to the Commission.

        Commissioner Olague:

        - This is a dialogue she has been hearing for awhile. She agrees that this topic would be of great interest.

            Interim Director Macris:

            - He will speak with the Commission President and determine what forum would be best.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Workforce Housing

        - It is important to look at this. The intent is not to make things harder for another group.

        - The middle-income housing group is the one that has received the least amount of housing in the last few years.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        Re: 1420 Haight Street (heard under Public Comment on April 28, 2005)

        - This project was denied by the Commission on April 21, 2005. It was denied because an elevator was non compliant with the permit.

        - The Commission requested additional information from the counsel for the project sponsor.

        - Since that time, they did put in a submittal and in review of that submittal, there is one item of particular merit to warrant the rehearing.

        - What was in noncompliance was the elevator and the location of the elevator. Now there is a jurisdictional issue as it relates to compliance with state regulations.

        - So he believes that this may impact what options the project sponsor had at that time.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - The permit is still at the department and he has not made a determination on the Variance so it could be brought back before the Commission.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - He agrees with bringing this back before them.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        - He would be supportive of a rehearing.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - The case will be re-noticed and rescheduled. All the affected parties will be notified.

        Commissioner Olague:

        Re: Enforcement

        - Certain commitments are made that become part of the findings with certain projects.

        - How are projects enforced once they leave the Commission?

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - When a project is approved, how is it assured that the conditions of approval are applied as it is going into implementation?

            - When conditions are placed on the operation of a project and a few years later it is not complying with the conditions of approval, how is this enforced?

            - An informational hearing before the Commission can be scheduled to answer questions the Commission might have on this issue.

            - He feels that the end of June or early July would be the aim.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

        Interim Director Macris reported:

        Re: Hiring Program

        - This is well underway.

        - To date there have been six offers to fill the 21 vacancies that need to be completed. Five of these six have accepted the offers. Environmental Review will receive two, Citywide will receive 1 and Neighborhood Planning will receive three.

        - The hiring program will continue until the 21 vacancies have been filled.

        Re: Fee Analysis

        - This is also well underway.

        - There have been about 100 or so activities that the Department caries out that can be chargeable.

        - This list could be made available to the Commission.

        - July or early August will be when the analysis will be completed.

        - The target is to have a new fee schedule by early next year.

        Re: How business is conducted

        - There is another analysis going on regarding how the department can do business more efficiently.

        Re: Department of Building Inspection

        - They need more space and he and others in the department are working on a plan to more the department into a single place instead of two (1660 Mission Street and 30 Van Ness).

        - They are exploring the building immediately next door (1650 Mission Street). This way, DBI can use the entire building at 1660 Mission Street.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        - AIA and SPUR has a report that has very reasonable--easy steps to make the department more efficient.

        Re: In home access

        - He would like to see a study done on how people from home can access the DBI/Planning system to view permit information.

            Interim Director Macris:

            - Staff is working on a contract to get someone to work with DBI and Planning on standardizing the computer programs so that someone can go on the internet and access a database on the history and status of permits.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        - He would like the Department of Street Use and Mapping to be included.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            DPW, Fire, Building and Planning will be involved in this. A unified system will be implemented.

            - This information will be available in July 2005.

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

        BOS -

        Zoning Administrator reported:

        Re: Audit Committee - Chinatown Economic Development Group

        - He along with Alicia Jean-Baptiste and representatives from Park and Rec, Controllers and City Attorney's Office attended this meeting regarding the open space fund that was generated by 447 Battery Street.

        - The Commission directed him to grant a Variance in affect that would allow payment to a non-profit group. The money was not spent as it should have been.

        - Of the $275,000, the City has received $162,000. Park and Rec has received this money. Staff is asking to account for $35,000 in administrative funds and about $40,000 that is short.

        - Director Macris wrote a few letters asking for more information on the status of this $40,000.

        - The CEDG responded that they did not have the money and were seeking it from the former Board.

        - Staff will be meeting with the City Attorney and the Controller to determine what the next steps will be.

        Re: Medical Canabus Dispensary Moratorium

        - The Mayor signed this into law in April--a 45 day moratorium which will expire next week.

        - Supervisor Mirkarimi is asking for an extension.

        - This legislation will come to the Planning Commission in the near future.

        - Planning staff recommended a 6-month moratorium.

        - Permits will not be processed right now, if there was one that had to be processed, the case would go into Discretionary Review.

        BOA -

        Re: 141-143 Parnassus Avenue

        - This was a dwelling unit merger and was denied by the Commission.

        - The Board overturned the Commission +5-0 with the explanation that family housing is important and that the tenant had moved out voluntarily.

        Re: 2169 Folsom Street

        - The Commission did not hear this case but he thought it important to mention.

        - There was one live work unit that wanted to expand. He determined that live work cannot be expanded because they are non-conforming uses. The Board overturned the denial of the building permit based upon his interpretation of the law because the space that was being used could be used as an artist studio or a gallery and not an expansion of the live work.

        - He will take a closer look at the ordinance.

        Re: 1921 Palou Avenue

        - This project was before the Commission. It was determined to expand a lightwell and the project was approved.

        - The Board upheld the Commission +5-0.

        Re: Public Comment from April 28, 2005

        - Ms. Sue Hestor spoke about case reports not being submitted to the Board of Appeals.

        - He spoke to members of the Board and it is true that the information was not being submitted to the Board of Appeals.

        - He has submitted a draft proposal to make sure that the procedure is working and that case material is being submitted to the Board of Appeals.

        - It was suggested that when a motion is made, there should also be a summary of why the Commission took this action. In other words, the Commission should state the reason why they are taking their action. This would assist the case planner in defending the Commission's decision.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        RE: Chinatown Economic Development Group

        - He made a disclosure that he was Chair of the Chinatown Economic Development Group appointed by Mayor Newsome. After the first meeting he relinquished his seat but he is still a member. So if there is any conflict with what the Planning Commission needs to do, he requested that staff seek advise from the City Attorney so they can guide him.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        Re: Board of Appeals

        - When the Commission receives information from staff and from the public and they develop policy, is the basis of an appeal to the Board of Appeals limited to an appeal based on procedure, based on misapplication of the policy or does the Board have broad discretion in that they simply in their opinion don't believe that the policy has merit and consequently can uphold an appeal and eliminate the existence of a policy?

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - The Board of Appeals is not governed by the Commission's decision and can take into account the policy of the Commission but it is not their policy.

            - The Board of Appeals can follow the laws but they can make their own decisions. The Board can basically not follow the Commission's decision.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        - Even after all the work, the public comment, etc, the Board can still decide to act in conflict with the intent of the policy if in their view they believe this to be appropriate?

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - Even if the Board had the same amount of input, they can come to a different conclusion.

        City Attorney Boyajian responded:

        - If the Commission feels strongly about this then it should be codified so that it binds the Board of Appeals.

        - If the law is in the Planning Code, then the Planning Code binds them.

        Commissioner Olague:

        Re: Board of Appeals

        - This is a poor characterization of the powers of the Planning Commission.

        Zoning Administrator responded:

        - He will be looking at this more closely.

        Commissioner S. Lee:

        - A hearing on this needs to be scheduled because there are many questions and concerns from the Planning Commission.

        Commissioner Alexander:

        - It is important to have a hearing with the Board of Appeals.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - A session is already scheduled with the Board of Appeals.

        - He also knows that there is a hearing on unit mergers as well.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - June 15 is the hearing date with the Board of Appeals at 5:30 p.m.

            - Your policies on dwelling unit mergers and demolitions will be discussed.

      10. 2004.0774X (L. BADINER: 415/558-6350 & D. DiBARTOLO 415/558-6291)

        652-654 MISSION STREET - north side between New Montgomery and Third Streets -Informational Presentation on the construction of a new building for The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Institute (SPUR) which would include exhibit, public assembly, library, meeting rooms, and office space. The project is subject, under Section 309, to an administrative review only.

        Preliminary Recommendation: No action to be taken by the Planning Commission

        Jim Chappell - SPUR

        - They were founded in 1959 to try to keep the City as a good economical and environmentally great place to live.

        - They have various presentations and seminars throughout the day.

        - They work on long-term citywide implications.

        - They are growing rapidly and have about 3,000 members.

        - They have purchased this site on Mission Street.

        - The purpose of this project is to expand their space for urban affairs in the day and evening.

        - They look forward to continually working with the Planning Department and Planning Commission.

        Peter Faul - Project Architect

        - He displayed various renderings related to the project including the façade, interior and library.

        Steven Gray

        - He has a Masters in preservation.

        - A four-story building involving a demolition takes more than a year.

        - He has had conversations with staff and was not given much information.

        - There does not seem to be a way to get information on the permit.

        Kepa Askenasy - Potrero Hill

        - She has received calls on questions related to process.

        - She called the Department but did not get information related to the project.

        - She was finally told that the permits were done administratively in-house.

        - She suggested that the SPUR project be stopped and that a proper process begin since there is no permit on file.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. No Action Required.

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.

      Jerry Crowley

      Re: Search for a Planning Director

      - There is a need for permanent leadership in the Planning Department.

      Jose Morales - SF Tenant's Union/MAC

      Re: Projects in the Mission/Bernal Height Area

      - He is opposed to projects that destroy neighborhoods and homes.

      - DBI should get more involved with special inspections and written reports before permits are accepted.

      - Many landlords are keeping secrets.

      - All projects should preserve affordable housing and not loose it.

      Veva Edelson

      Re: a project in her neighborhood

      - She came a few weeks ago to discuss a project in her neighborhood.

      - Since then there has been an application filed but there is still misinformation.

      - Many of her neighbors have concerns with this plan.

      - She feels that they are not being heard.

      Steve Currier - Outer Mission Residents Association

      Re: Home Depot Project

      - He would like to know what is going on with this project.

      - There are various projects in his neighborhood that have been approved and they have improved the neighborhood greatly.

      - If he can be of any help to get this moving along he would welcome the opportunity.

      Kepa Askenasy

      Re: Ethics Complaint

      - She came across some documents related to an Ethics complaint regarding Mr. Jean Paul Samaha.

      - During his employment at the Planning Department, Mr. Samaha, received both a personal unsecured loan which totaled $106,200 as well a property at no cost on Webster Street from Mr. James Nunemacker. Neither a waver of payment nor proof of payment has been filed with the Recorder's Office for the loan (She displayed documents related to these statements).

      - His Statement of Economic Interest does not show this information either.

      - Mr. Samaha and Mr. Nunemacker have not registered as domestic partners.

      Steve St. Deny - Carpet Connection - Bayshore Merchant's Association

      Re: Home Depot

      - He has a business on Bayshore Boulevard.

      - The new structures on that street are large businesses.

      - There are businesses that have left the area as well.

      - He has had to move from the area because the customers that used to come to the area are missing.

      - There doesn't seem to be any move to bring Home Depot to the area.

      - Maybe an entire new school could have been built already with the revenue from the businesses in the area.

      Courtney Clarkson

      Re: Planning Department Issues

      - She has received a number of notices on preservation from the Planning Department.

      - Usually Planning submits photographs on projects.

      - Recently there has been talk about affordable housing.

      - Smaller houses that are older are being replaced with large mansions.

      - Planning needs to start taking a look at what constitutes affordable housing.

      Tracy Hughes

      Re: 1070 Sanchez

      - She is concerned about a historically significant tree in the back of this house.

      - She is also concerned about the preservation of smaller houses. They are being replaced by larger homes.

      - There are more and more developments in various areas in the City.

      - She is going to try to save the tree.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

        11. 2005.0056C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        1640 HAYES STREET - north side between Central Avenue and Lyon Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1198 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 209.1(h) of the Planning Code to allow more than three dwelling units on a lot within an RH-3 (Residential House, Three Family) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing single-family dwelling to a four-unit building with no physical expansion of the building. Four parking spaces will be provided.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 17014

      12. 2004.1293C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        20 PETERS AVENUE - west side south of Fair Avenue; Lot 045 in Assessor's Block 5615 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j) to add a second dwelling unit to a single-family dwelling without providing an additional off-street parking space. The site is within the NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add a rear horizontal addition and a second dwelling unit at the rear of the ground floor of this single-family dwelling. The existing garage accommodates one vehicle.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Henry Shapiro - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The project sponsor has been the owner for many years.

        - The property recently had been a rental property.

        - There have been very large projects already approved in the area without off-street parking.

        - There is very good public transportation in the area.

        (+) Lewis Epstein

        - He grew up in this house.

        - Almost every house on the block has a "make believe" unit.

        - The only difference here is that he wants to make the unit legal.

        (-) Martin Sharpe

        - He lives across the street.

        - There are many neighbors who are opposed to this project.

        - This is not a single car garage because he has seen more than one car and a few motorcycles.

        - Parking is a serious problem on that street. He has seen a neighbor that had to be taken down the street to an ambulance because the ambulance could not get through.

        MOTION: Approve

        AYES: Antonini, W. Lee, Olague

        NAYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        RESULT: Motion Failed

        ACTION: In the absence of a substitute motion, the project is disapproved

      13a. 2004.1212C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        2839-41 MISSION STREET - a through lot between Mission Street and Lilac Alley between 24th Street and 25th Street, Lot 029 in Assessor's Block 6517 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 161j to convert second story office space into six dwelling units without providing parking. The subject property is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Density) District, and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Hector Gallon - Project Designer

        - The building has been vacant two or three years.

        - The location is very close to the BART station.

        - They want to have more dwelling units in the area because there is a great need for housing.

        (+) Phillip Lesser - Mission Merchant's Association

        - This project is very close to the BART station.

        - This would be a great transit first project.

        - The project sponsor has worked with his family. He knows that it will be a tasteful project.

        ACTION: Approved with the condition that the skylight issue will be addressed in the exposure Variance.

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 17015

      13b. 2004.1212V (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        2839-41 MISSION STREET - a through lot between Mission Street and Lilac Alley between 24th Street and 25th Street, Lot 029 in Assessor's Block 6517 - Request rear yard, open space, and exposure variance (Planning Code Sections 134, 135, and 140) in association with a proposal to convert second story office space into six dwelling units. The subject property is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Density) District, and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for 13a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the Variance with the condition that plans show skylight on light court.

        14. 2005.0087C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        1402 GRANT AVENUE - northeast corner at Green Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify the conditions of approval from a previous conditional use for an existing small self-service restaurant (dba "Magnet"). The proposal is to change a Type 41 ABC license (beer and wine; food service required) to a Type 42 ABC license (beer and wine; food service not required). Under Article 7 of the Planning Code, this proposal constitutes a change of use from a restaurant to a bar. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Mike Giggles - Project Sponsor

        - He previously applied for an entertainment license.

        - He has a small café legally classified as a small service restaurant.

        - The café does not have a license for spirits.

        - ABC has received a number of complaints.

        - His business is small so even a small fine hurts.

        (-) Courtney Clarkson

        - She owns a small business near this project.

        - She has spent a few years renovating the building.

        - Almost every time she goes to the building she notices that there is a large amount of liquor containers near the building.

        - Many times she has had to close the gate of her building because when people are intoxicated, they urinate in the area.

        - The neighborhood is full of bars and there is no need for another one.

        (-) Brad Wilmore - Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association

        - It is very difficult when there is a retail operation near a bar. During the day everything is quiet and clean, but in the evenings, there is much trash and disturbance.

        - THD is in favor of small businesses but the heavy bar traffic is a detriment to the neighborhood.

        - They are in support of neighborhood servicing businesses.

        (-) Gerry Crowley - Telegraph Hill Dwellers

        - The owner originally wanted a full liquor license.

        - This project is destined to be a night bar.

        - She hopes that the project sponsor will [does not] return to his original plan.

        (+) Michael Goebel

        - He currently works at the restaurant.

        - There is a misconception that they are not going to act as a restaurant.

        - Their intention to switch to a liquor license, is because they still want to serve food but also liquor.

        ACTION: Disapproved

        AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        NAYES: Antonini

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 17016

        15a. 2004.1342EXV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

            693 SUTTER STREET - southeast corner at Taylor Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 0297 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Planning Code Section 309 and Request for Exceptions including an exception to the rear yard requirements as permitted in Section 134(d). The proposal is to convert approximately 7,000 square feet of office space on the fifth and sixth floors of the existing building to six dwelling units. Previously, Section 309 approval was granted for the conversion of the mezzanine and the second through fourth floors from office space to 10 dwelling units. Approval of the current proposal would result in a total of 16 dwelling units, including two BMR units. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The project site lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hold a simultaneous hearing to consider a request for an off-street parking variance.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 28, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Simon Kwan - Representing the Project Sponsor

        - The BMR unit will be on the fifth floor.

        ACTION: Approved with the BMR unit on the fifth floor.

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 17017

    15b. 2004.1342EXV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        693 SUTTER STREET - southeast corner at Taylor Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 0297 - Off-street parking variance sought. The proposal is to convert approximately 7,000 square feet of office space on the fifth and sixth floors of the existing building to six dwelling units. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The project site lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The parking requirement for the proposed project is two spaces, and the project is proposing zero spaces. The application for variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 28, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 15a

        ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the Variance subject to standard conditions of approval.

      16. 2005.0218Z (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT AND BULK DESIGNATIONS FOR ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 0195 (BOUNDED BY JACKSON STREET, WASHINGTON STREET, MONTGOMERY STREET AND KEARNY STREET) - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by repealing Section263.1, which allows the Planning Commission to approve height up to 200 feet in the 65D-2 Height and Bulk District, and by amending the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco, Sheet 1H, to change the height and bulk designation of Assessor's Block 0195, Lots 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 from 65D-2 to 40-X and to change the height and bulk designations of the remaining assessor's blocks and lots within the 65D-2 Height and Bulk District from 65D-2 to 65-A, and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Supervisor Aaron Peskin - Sponsor of Legislation

        - Washington Street has historically been the dividing line between the bulk and mass of downtown and the human scale of neighborhood environment of Jackson Square and Telegraph Hill.

        - These are zoning battles that took place in the late 1960's.

        - In the late 1980's there was an up zoning that happened and nobody, not even people with the wisdom of Mr. Badiner, quite remember what happened, but that created the 65 D-200 which allows buildings up to 200 feet on the north side of Washington Street.

        - The legislation here before the Commission is designed simply to maintain the human scale environment north of Washington Street in accordance with the built environment that exists there.

        - Mr. Lord indicated that City College has indeed submitted a letter that indicates that they support the legislation and further warns that as a state institution, it is not binding upon them and any properties that they own.

        - He is available for questions and hopes that the Commission will recommend it to the Board of Supervisors.

        (-) Ron Lee - Chinatown Neighbors Association

        - The height modification is not good for the neighborhood because it would discourage development.

        - Development to improve old buildings and empty lots would increase revenue.

        - This height limit would decrease property values.

        (-) June Lee - Nob Hill Realty

        - She read a letter from her client who is opposed to this height modification.

        (-) Sun Tai Lum

        - She spoke through an interpreter.

        - She is opposed to the height modification. It is not fair to the residents of the area.

        (-) Dorothy Zhu

        - She is opposed to the height modifications. It is not fair and it is no good.

        (-) Lawrence Lee

        - He and his family own property in the area.

        - The existing height laws are already in place and are fair.

        - He is opposed to the height modifications.

        - It is not fair to take away their development rights.

        - It will also devalue the properties in the area.

        (-) Mary Tam

        - She owns property on Washington Street.

        - This height modification is not fair.

        MOTION: approve with amendments

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes

        NAYES: Alexander, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        RESULT: Motion failed

        MOTION: Continue to May 26, 2005

        RESULT: The motion did not receive a second. The motion died.

        ACTION: Approved as amended: Bring the 40-X height limit up to 65 feet.

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

        ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

        RESOLUTION: 17018

        17. 2004.0055R (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

        AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (GENERAL PLAN REFERRAL) - The Planning Commission adopted General Plan conformity findings for the Transbay Redevelopment Plan on December 9, 2004. However the Redevelopment Agency has proposed amendments to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan resulting from Board of Supervisors input on the Plan, requiring new General Plan conformity findings, pursuant to Section 4.105 of the City Charter and Section 2A.53 of the San Francisco Administrative Code.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Motion finding the proposed amendments to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan in conformity with the General Plan.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 19, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

      18. (L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)

        PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT: Article IV, Sections 3 & 6 to address notice and voting; add a new Section 7 to address jurisdiction; renumber remaining sections of Article IV.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 21, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to June 16, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

19a. 2003.0253D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3680 to demolish an existing two-story two-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-family dwelling) in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove Demolition Permit

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 21, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the demolition

        AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

      19b. 2004.0682D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction to replace demolished housing, of Building Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3684 for the new construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed new building will contain two off-street parking spaces.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove Building Permit

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 21, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and disapproved the project.

        AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

        20. 2004.1310DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        1260 FUNSTON AVENUE (AKA 13TH AVENUE) - east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 1738 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.27.5238 proposing to construct a three-story addition at the rear of a two-story single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Continued From Regular Meeting Of April 28, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 26, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

      21. 2004.1161D (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        1060 GILMAN AVENUE - north side between Hawes and Grifith Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 4937 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application No. 2004.03.03.7628, proposing to construct a three-story single-family dwelling on the existing vacant lot. The subject property is located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 26, 2005.

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        22. 2004.0901D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        2745 WEBSTER STREET - west side between Green and Vallejo Streets; Lot 001A in Assessor's Block 0557 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.08.12.1399, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from 12 units to 11 units, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application as proposed.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Janier Tessie

        - He lives on Webster Street.

        - The building has been in his family for 50 years.

        - The unit that is vacant has been vacant for three years.

        - His family is growing and they need to have more space.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

    23a. 2003.0909D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        39 DIAMOND STREET, east side between Market and 18th Streets, Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 2648 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.05.09.4176, proposing to demolish a one-story single-family dwelling, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) John Lau - Representing Project Sponsor

        - They have been working on this project for two years.

        - They have gone through the demolition procedures as well as environmental procedures.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee

        23b. 2005.0421D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        39 DIAMOND STREET - east side between Market and 18th Streets, Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 2648 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.09.4178, proposing to construct a three-story over garage three-family dwelling, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 23a.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project with instructions to continue working with staff on design.

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and W. Lee

        24. 2004.0398D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        49 ELK STREET - east side between Sussex and Chenery Streets. Assessor's Block 6709 Lot 028 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.1205.1666 to construct two story rear additions to the existing dwelling, in an 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.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 7, 2005

        AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

      25. 2005.0021D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        1 PALO ALTO DRIVE (AKA 1 AVANZADA AKA 250 PALO ALTO) - Assessor's Block 2724 Lot 003 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2004.1105.8607 for installation of an emergency generator and pad with diesel fuel tank for KBHK television, 2004.1220.1816 for installation of an FM antenna for KNGY radio, on the north leg at the third level of Sutro Tower and, 2005.0125.3910 for installation of four receive only satellite dishes for KPIX TV-5. This project lies within the RH-1, Residential House, One Family District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Conditions.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Debra Stein

        - There are a lot of issues that have been resolved in the last four years.

        - Sutro Tower is a shared facility.

        - The existing operations are not before the Commission today.

        - This project complies with all standards.

        - The alterations before the Commission today are minor.

        - The antenna will not transmit harmful radiation.

        (-) Eileen Bocken

        - There are a number of diesel storage facilities at Sutro Tower already.

        - There are about 200 antennae already at this location.

        - It is not sound policy to have such a high concentration of the City's Telecommunications structures in one location.

        - She recommends that this proposal be turned down.

        (-) Christine Linenbach - Twin Peaks Improvement Association

        - She requested that the City Attorney explain the scope of the appeal that was taken to the California State Court of Appeals.

        - The use permit clearly states that Sutro Tower is limited to one tower and one building. Currently the proposal is for two 15-foot diameter satellite dishes on top of a garage that was never part of the Conditional Use permit. And this garage has never received authorization from the Zoning Administrator as being part of the Conditional Use.

        - There are several questions of safety. For example, why does the fuel tank have to be installed closest to residential homes and water supplies? Why do the satellite dishes have to be on top of the garage?

        - She requested that this hearing be continued so that this case can be heard before the Board of Appeals first and then before the Planning Commission.

        (-) Everett Homebolt

        - He is opposed to this proposal because he is concerned about the diesel facility.

        - He believes that this will be a fire hazard.

        - He is concerned about the flammable liquids.

        - The affects of long-term exposure have not been fully explored.

        - The seismic danger has not been completely discussed either.

        (-) Walter Kaplan - Forest Knowles Association

        - There was improper notice of this hearing.

        - The project description is inaccurate and incomplete, thereby depriving interested parties of proper and adequate notice of the proposed project.

        - A CU authorization is required by this project.

        - Staff states that this project is exempted from environmental review.

        - He has provided the Commission a very important court case which deals with Planning priorities.

        - The surrounding areas have hundreds of homes.

        - Every addition to this project demands a separate finding.

        (+) Jean Sasro - General Manager of Sutro Tower

        - There are three phases to this project.

        - There are representatives from all three stations here to speak.

        - There was a very thorough investigation for the location of the generator and the fuel tank.

        - The location is the closes to KBHK so that the lines are as close as possible.

        - The satellite antennas are being located on top of the garage so that they will receive signals properly.

        (+) Steve Boycons - Station Manager for KBHK-TV

        - He has been in television for many years.

        - They are part of the CBS team.

        - They are planning to expand their coverage.

        (+) Joe Balus - KNGY Owner

        - He is an independent broadcaster and owner.

        - His company has gone through great length to do market research and find out what is underserved.

        - The two communities that are underserved are the Chinese and Gay communities.

        - The proposal will allow for a better platform and provide better access to the communities.

        - He is available for further questions.

        (+) Chris Boyle - Chief Marketing Officer of The United Way

        - Their partnership with CBS-5 is very important.

        - They have a holiday food program, which provides much needed toys and food during the holiday season.

        (+) Booker Raid

        - Their mission is multiculturalism.

        - They have various programs in various locations.

        - This has been a tremendously burdensome process.

        (+) Bob McCarthy

        - The history of the tower is not before the Commission.

        - What is before the Commission is just a minor antenna.

        - Television plays a major role in communication and not just entertainment.

        - It is important to preserve free television in the United States.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approve with Staff's and Supervisor Elsbernd Conditions:

          · Tank Design: The above-ground fuel tank shall be double-walled, have double-walled piping, and have an automatic 24 hour sensor that will sound an alarm in the event of any leak.

          · Certified Operator: Sutro Tower, Inc. shall designate an operator who possesses a current certificate issued by the International Code Council indicating that the UST operator passed the California UST System Operator Exam, and shall provide a copy of said certificate to the San Francisco Department of Public Health on a quarterly basis. This Certified Operator shall not be an employee of Sutro Tower, Inc.

          · Monthly Inspections: The Certified Operator shall conduct inspections of all fuel storage tanks at Sutro Tower on a monthly basis pursuant to Cal. Code, Reg. Sec. 2715.

          · Quarterly Reports: Sutro Tower, Inc. shall provide the San Francisco Department of Public Health with copies of the monthly inspection reports on a quarterly basis.

          · Annual Testing and Inspection: Sutro Tower shall engage an independent, certified testing agency to perform annual leak sensor tests, test and calibrate the automatic leak detection system, test leak and overfill alarms, and inspect the entire fuel system. The San Francisco Department of Public Health shall be notified of the date and time of the annual inspection no less than 48 hours in advance and may observe the procedure, if it deems necessary. A copy of the annual testing and inspection report shall be provided to the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

          · DPH Inspections: Sutro Tower, Inc. shall provide the San Francisco Department of Public Health full access to its facilities to inspect the fuel tanks at any time, upon 48 notice to the general manager of Sutro Tower, except in the case of an emergency, in which case no advance notice is required.

          AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

F. 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))

SPEAKE(S):

        Eileen Boken - SPEAK

        Re: 1234 19th Avenue

        - This proposed demolition of a pre-1906 Victorian came before the Commission previously.

        - The Commission rejected the proposed demolition and SPEAK was the main opponent to this demolition.

        - Just last week this appeal came before the Board of Appeals and the Commission's determination was overturned.

        - SPEAK was not at this hearing to state the case against demolition.

        - When trying to figure out what went so terribly wrong, she spoke with the legal assistant of the Board of Appeals.

        - The first thing mentioned to her was that the Board of Appeals did not receive a copy of the project file from the Planning Department.

        - The Board of Appeals did not see the same information that the Commission did when the Commission made its determination.

        - The board based its decision primarily on information provided by the project sponsor.

        - Also, because the Board of Appeals did not receive the project file, they also did not receive a list of interested parties so notification was only sent to immediate neighbors.

        - SPEAK did not receive notification even though it was the primary opponent to the proposed demolition.

        - The findings of the appeal will be heard on May 18, 2005.

        - she requested that the Commission instruct the Zoning Administrator to issue a formal request for a rehearing before May 18.

        - Also, she requested that the Commission instruct the Planning Department to forward a copy of the project file to the Board of Appeals.

Adjournment: 8:15 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:16 PM