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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
June 8, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 8, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee and Olague

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:30 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Dan Sider, Cytra Moitra, Rick Cooper, Paul Lord, Michael Smith, John Purvis, Shawn Mendrin, Jonas Ionin – Acting 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. 2006.0537D (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

1678 Great Highway - east side between Moraga and Lawton Avenues, Lot 026, in Assessor's Block 1895 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit #2006.02.01.6549 proposing to legalize work performed without permits – including reconstructing the rear of a single family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the application as submitted.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

2a. 2005.0938CR (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

Sunset Reservoir - bounded by Ortega Street, 24th Avenue, Quintara Street, and 28th Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2107 - Request by Sprint/Nextel Communications for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 234.2(a) to allow for the construction of a freestanding wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) antennas mounted to a 60' tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District, and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the site is a Preferred Location Preference 1 site as it is a public-use structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of May 25, 2006)

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT

SPEAKERS

Dick - Sunset Group

- We had 900 petitions that we submitted to you and I got about 283 more that I submitted this morning.

- Requested that the Commission do what ever is in your power to have our site removed permanently so no other renters can look at it and that Sprint can decide to apply again.

Eileen - SPEAK

- I appreciate the group for gathering over 900 signatures opposing the project. Also, for Supervisor Ma and her office supporting us.

2b. 2005.0938CR (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

SUNSET RESERVOIR - bounded by Ortega Street, 24th Avenue, Quintara Street, and 28th Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2107 - Request by Sprint/Nextel Communications for a finding of consistency with the General Plan pursuant to Section 4.105 of the City/County Charter to allow for the construction of a freestanding wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) antennas mounted to a 60' tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of May 25, 2006)

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT

SPEAKERS: Same as those for item 2a

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

3. Consideration of Adoption -

· Draft Minutes of Special Joint Hearing of March 2, 2006.

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006.

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 22, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

4. 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 just wanted to comment on an announcement in the press today or yesterday about the closure of a couple of major supermarkets in San Francisco.

- One of them is a mixed used project that has been successful.

- In terms of land use, I think that when we approve a lot of these things we do it with an idea that they have to work in harmony with each other and have the [necessary] different components.

- I certainly hope that the department works with the project sponsor to try to keep those markets open or work out some sort of replacement strategy to allow both of these to continue to function as supermarkets in those areas.

- Particularly the one on Alemany Boulevard - that is really tied to the whole development.

- This is a transit village type concept and we are very much in favor of that. A lot of our philosophy is based upon the continuance of the elements being there and when one element falls off it significantly changes the environment we created.

- I think it is something we have to keep an eye on and try to work with whoever the appropriate agencies are to deal with this issue to kind of look at this situation and see what can be done.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

5. Director's Announcements

Dean Macris, Director

- Yesterday, we had a neighborhood walk in the upper Market area.

- We had several of our own staff there to take neighbors through a number of projects that are under consideration in that Upper Market District.

- It worked out very well. There are about 9 projects that move all the way from Duboce Street up to Market and Castro Streets.

- With the support of Supervisor Duffty, we had a nice tour and about 45 neighbors joined our staff.

- We discussed the regulations involved with these sites and what potentially would work for them and what the Market-Octavia Plan would call for at those sites.

- I just wanted you to know that we did have that outreach program.

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

Dan Sider reporting on:

Board of Supervisors

- Our Department's proposed lease at 1650 Mission Street was before the Board. It is right next to our current location. The Full Board reviewed this item on Tuesday and they did recommend that we enter into a lease. It was approved unanimously.

- Supervisor Peskin's Ordinance related to C-3 Parking or Downtown parking. This is of course the third ordinance relating to this topic. It was reviewed and passed by a vote of +9 -2 on first reading. Supervisor Daly requested to be added as a co-sponsor. This item will appear before the Board next week for final adoption.

Land Use Committee

- Review of Amendments to Planning Code Section 604 relating to generally sign relocation procedures and inventories. Advanced to the Full Board of Supervisor for final approval.

Rules Committee

- Katherine Moore is Supervisor Peskin's nominee to this body, It was reviewed today and unanimously voted to recommend that the Full Board of Supervisors confirm that nomination in the near future.

Jonas Ionin reported on:

Board of Appeals

- 1070 Sanchez Street - Discretionary Review. Request for a re-hearing and also there was a second appeal on the Categorical Exception to the Board of Supervisors.

The Clerk of the Board found that there was no reason to grant that second request and the Board of Appeals decided that there was no new information presented to them to grant the re-hearing.

7. (Tape IA; IB) (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

SENIOR HOUSING - Informational report on senior housing California State and San Francisco Planning Code requirements, recent projects and enforcement procedures.

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

- I emailed a memorandum with attachments. There is a correction to be noted in my text where I used the wrong word and I corrected it on my draft but not on my document.

- The State Law  requires' bonuses for projects of 35 units or more. The statement that I used includes  allows.'

- The projects that we traditionally see [that is in my brief on page 3] which are the senior projects that are publicly founded, are not a problem.

- They are specifically designed for low income people and developed by low income serving organizations: churches, and non profit housing developments.

- Most of the projects that Mr. Badiner gave you are not a problem at all. The issue is for-profit developers or developers whose statuses are not clear. Some of them are ambiguous.

- Some of the developing projects are starting to be very large unit projects.

- You have a lot of projects that started coming through from 1984 to 1997. If you noticed, you started seeing projects in the past couple of years with some names showing repeatedly.

- When you have family housing with seniors, you have an enormous problem because you can not monitor by having someone go in and check the residents. The NSR has to be meaningful. Let us not create another loop by not paying attention.

Barbara - Senior Action Network

- I think that what we want to raise here is the double density. The fact that market rate housing can be built and get twice the units. I wonder how many seniors can afford $1,300 for a single bedroom on Bayshore. It is very expensive housing in areas where, in my experience with seniors across the board, seniors do not have all that much money to be spending wildly on housing.

- The real question is to watch this double density and keep track of it. Let us make sure that we have the mechanisms to see how it is really working and if we are giving away housing to the developers.

- I think that this has come up and this Commission should look at and tie these things to the computer and make sure that we have a mechanism to go back and check it for responsibility.

[Inaudible]

- I am the architect for three of the projects. I hear that the Commission and Ms. Hestor have a problem that if I want to live with my parents and my son you would not allowed it.

- If you do not like this family housing just take it out of the code. It has been in the code for 25 years and nobody has had any problems. No developer has any problem with developing this type of housing.

- This is discrimination because you see a Chinese name as an architect and as a developer and you are telling us not to do it.

- This is not even built and you can have somebody monitor it every day until there is something wrong or change the Planning Code, but do not accuse us.

Patricia Vaughey

- I just want you to be well aware that some seniors are going to need to drive.

- You are going to have to start considering if there are some exceptions to the rules on parking because of different illness situations that exist.

- There are some factors concerning seniors that are not taken into consideration for all of these rules.

ACTION: Informational Only. No Action required of the Commission

8. 2005.0816 IC (Tape IB) (C. MOITRA: (415) 558-6370)

55 STOCKTON STREET - southwest corner of Stockton and O'Farrell Streets, Assessor's Block 0327, Lot 001, 002, 003 and 020 - Zoning Administrator's report to the Planning Commission on the filing of an Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (AIMP) for the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising. The AIMP is filed in accordance with Planning Code Section 304.5. The AIMP contemplates an expansion of the institute's current 32,490 sq. ft use to 40,644 sq. ft, within the upper floors of the same building in the C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District. The Commission may, at its option, choose to hold or not hold a public hearing on the plan, for the receipt of public testimony only. Such hearing would not be for the purpose of approving or disapproving the AIMP.

Preliminary Recommendation: DO NOT hold public hearing on Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

- We need to have an understanding from the Housing Element on what is the housing demand for students.

- It would be very helpful for you and for the public to have information from all those institutions for the next Housing Element.

- UCSF, USF, Academy of Arts College, New College, Culinary Institute and this one will need to file for a Master Plan and all together it might be more than 20,000 students.

- Ask them if they would cooperate at a future hearing to discuss student housing needs.

ACTION: THE COMMISSION DECIDED TO NOT HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING.

D. 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.


9. 2005.0816IC (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

55 STOCKTON STREET - southwest corner of intersection with O'Farrell Street, Lot 1, in Assessor's Block 327 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to convert three dwelling units located above ground level to non-residential space for the subject property, which is in the C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert three dwelling units on the top floor of the existing subject eight-story mixed use building, which contains retail on the first three levels, office and/or institutional uses on the fourth through seventh levels, plus the subject three dwelling units occupying the eighth floor. The Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, which currently occupies space on three floors of the subject building, needs additional institutional space and plans to occupy the eighth floor of the building where the three dwelling units are currently located.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

MOTION: 17257

E. 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: None

F. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

There were no items in this category.

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

10. 2006.0093T (Tape IB; IIA)) (L. SCOTT: (415) 558 6317)

PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF GENERAL ADVERTISING SIGN LEGALITY - Consideration of legalization criteria for general advertising signs. This criteria would be used to evaluate whether signs are code compliant as part of a sign inventory process. An ordinance (File No. 05-2021) pending before the Board of Supervisor's Land Use Committee provides a relocation procedure for general advertising signs, requires sign companies to submit inventories of signs, and provides funding through new fees charged to sign companies for the Planning Department to verify such inventories.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending Approve amended legalization criteria as Commission policy and forward further amendments to Board of Supervisors.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Debbie

- We operate 25 signs in San Francisco.

- We have two landlords that have two different signs that were in Code Enforcement proceedings during the legislation that have been looked at and the criterion has not been established.

- We request that the permits for these two landlords be reinstated and the signs be reposted at the permitted site and the enforcement proceedings be tabled until the legislation is clarified.

Jerry Adams

- I just want to talk about 1965. We have a disagreement with staff about the significance of that date.

- Article 6 legislation is a result of exhausted work by the Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors between from 1960 to1965.

- If the sign was put up before 1965, there was no Planning Code issue. The Commission must recognize that 1965 is the real boundary.

Deborah

- This invites confusion or litigation. We really have to look at who is making the decisions about the permits' status and how.

- A process needs to allow the Zoning Administrator to make the decision based on evidence.

- Making billboards non-conforming uses does not make any existing billboard illegal.

- We have proposed some amendments that would clarify this.

[No name stated]

- I do not like budget waste of tax payer's money. The sign inventory would cost $1.1 million dollars and it is already being done. I have it right here.

Michael - 2141 – 2149 Chestnut Street

- We have three legally permitted signs that have been there for forty years.

- The legislation as currently proposed adversely affects the right of property owners in San Francisco and yet we were never notified of it.

- The City keeps record of property owners and individuals must be given the opportunity to defend their rights on this issue.

- This legislation needs to be amended to give small property owners the right to negotiate at the end of their existing leases to ensure fair market environment and rent.

Patricia Vaughey

- It is too bad that there are no changes from last week's hearing and today to save small property owners.

- This basically denies civil rights; discriminate against small property owners; and cause eminent domain.

- I think that this particular legislation should be stopped until those property owners have been identified and notified of the hearing s they can come to speak.

Martha

- The section 610 process was approved by the Board of Supervisors. It is a process to determine whether the billboard is legal or not.

- I just want to clarify that the Planning Department needs to go through a great deal of research before going to this process.

- San Francisco Beautiful urges you to follow the advice of your staff and require that each and every billboard be subject to legalization criteria no matter when they were erected.

Martin

- I am a property owner and own an outdoor sign company here in San Francisco.

- The legislation probably would help my company in the long run but stripping property owners of their right to rebuild or replace signs tilts to a negotiating table tremendously in favor of the sign companies.

Anthony

- This is the criteria regarding the legality of signs.

- In order to analyze the criteria, we need to understand the history of sign regulations, permitting practices, and the rights to and of the advertising industry.

- Another issue is that when you look at the criteria for in-lieu and non in-lieu signs, there is no standard for review. It simply provides you with a list of criteria.

Pat

- Structure repairs should be allowed.

- Do we want to allow people to be able to rebuild signs that are so far out of conformity?

Alice Barkley

- The Planning and Building Inspection Department records go back to before 1965. They exist and the department uses it frequently to tell people that the sign is illegal.

- I would like to suggest that if a sign was illegally put up without a permit, since the sign and the entitlement runs with the land and not the billboard company, the property owner to be allowed to replace the sign in accordance with current standards.

Jessie

- This is clear cut example of extortion and through these documents there is an attempt to manipulate City staff, people, and San Francisco Beautiful.

Robert McCarthy

- I would like to address two issues regarding the criteria for in lieu and legality of signs for the ones that have not been found.

- State Law allows that if there is a civil action over this issue that preponderance of evidence provides. That means that the sign is legal.

- I recommended that in Roman Numeral III of exhibit A of the staff's report you strike the words  all of' and say  simply' regarding in lieu permits.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Page 2 on exhibit A strike  Building Code and then add  requirements of the Building Code may be used as evidence of legality of the sign and use to both parts: in lieu and legality.

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

NAYES: Bradford-Bell

EXCUSED: Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17258

11. 2006.0109Z (Tape IIA) (R. CRAWFORD (415) 558-6358)

3184 Market Street (aka 341 Corbett Street)- Assessor's Block 2659 Lot 059 - Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning classification from P, Public Use to RH-2, Residential House, Two Family. This Project is located within a  P Public Use District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Jerry Romano, Applicant on behalf of the Mayor's Office of Housing, Real Estate Division

- This is a straight forward rezoning application only from P to HR-2.

- The Mayor's Office of Housing in conjunction with the City Surplus Property Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the Real Estate Division sell the property in order to obtain the highest fair market value.

Joe - Mayor's Office of Housing

- The Surplus Property Ordinance was passed by the Board of Supervisors in late 2002.

- That required Surplus property own by other City departments to be transferred to the Mayor's Office for the purpose of examining the feasibility of developing it for affordable housing.

- This site was transferred in 2004 and we asked ourselves if this could be used for affordable housing.

- After a study, we decided that it could be developed but it would probably cost us 30% to 35% more even though the land was free to us.

- It was our judgment that we should, instead of developing the site, sell it and use the revenue from that sale to spend that money on affordable housing throughout the City.

David

- Converting the park land into residence would reduce the charm and the character of the area. It would also eliminate the long strip of curbside parking.

- Across the street there is a large construction project on going that would also be residential. I would recommend not rezoning this lot until we know what that project is going to be.

Gary Wise, President of the Corbett Neighborhood

- Submitted additional letters and photographs to be included in the record.

- The lot in consideration today is the last and the largest of the green area that our neighborhood has.

- This property should remain undeveloped. The main reason for our opposition is that we would like to discuss this issue before the Board of Supervisors.

[Inaudible]

- This lot is very adequate to have as open space in the neighborhood. It meets the criteria from The Park and Recreational Open Space Advisory Committee and it is a great recreational opportunity for children.

- I request that you not approve rezoning and send it to Park and Recreation for assessment.

Janice

- This is a very scenic neighborhood and we spend money in the City for parks. This is something that already exists and many people are very seriously concerned that we are loosing our green space.

Joy

- I was very active in the community garden and it brought the neighborhood together. Taking this away will deeply affect us.

- Green is good for our air and our lungs.

Miranda

- Last year, the Chronicle had an article about this green space and how the garden brought us together.

- If it is decided to keep it as open space we will work together to keep it going. Our neighborhood is ready to save the neighborhood, City and the planet from global warming.

Tony

- We are facing a choice that could be irreversible. I ask you that as a Commission to say that it is enough and keep it as a public space.

Blake

- This is the only green area on Market Street and it is a break area when you are driving there.

- I know the City needs affordable housing but let us build taller buildings and not cut the trees.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Requesting the Mayor's Office of Housing to consult with Park and Recreation Department on whether they can acquire this parcel at fair market value in preserving it to be a park.

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

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

MOTION: 17259

12. 2005.0552E (M. Jacinto: (415) 558-5988)

340-350 Fremont Street - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project would involve demolition of two existing marine labor union halls and construction of a 40-story, 400-foot-tall building containing 380 residential units, with up to 380 off-street parking spaces located on five levels of below-grade parking. The project would provide about 108 bicycle stalls, two off-street loading spaces, approximately 20,400 square feet of onsite open space, and additional publicly accessible open space at an off-site location. The 350 and 340 Fremont Street buildings, constructed in 1956 and 1962 respectively, are considered historical resources under CEQA for their associations with maritime union history. The project site is located mid-block on the west side of Fremont Street between Folsom and Harrison Streets (Assessor's Block 3748; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9). The site is within the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential use district and a 400-R height and bulk district. This Draft EIR is tiered from the Final EIR for the Rincon Hill Plan (Case No. 2000.1081E; State Clearinghouse No. 1984061912).

Please note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report is closed. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar. Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 15, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Olague and Alexander

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, W. Lee and Hughes.

13a. 2004.0552X (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

340-350 FREMONT STREET - west side between Harrison Street and Folsom Street, Lots 006, 007, 008, and 009 of Assessor's Block 3748 - Request under Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and an exception to allow: (1) greater than one parking space for every two units (Planning Code sections 151.1 and 309.1(b)(1)(B)); (2) dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Sections 140 and 309.1(b)(1)(D)); (3) tower separation (Planning Code Section 270(e)(4)); and (4) the provision of the required usable open space off-site (Planning Code Sections 309.1(b)(1)(G) and (H) and 309.1(e)(2)). The project is to demolish the existing two buildings (340 and 350 Fremont Street) and construct a residential project that would consist of a tower reaching 400-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouse and screening). The project would feature a publicly accessible pedestrian path on its north side that would be aligned with townhouse units. The project would include approximately 330 dwelling units and approximately 330 parking spaces. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and a 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 15, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Olague and Alexander

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, W. Lee and Hughes.

13b. 2004.0552V (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

340-350 FREMONT STREET - west side between Harrison Street and Folsom Street, Lots 006, 007, 008, and 009 of Assessor's Block 37487 - Request for a Variance to vary the specification for front entry stoops; Planning Code Section 827(d)(5)(C) requires that along the subject portion of Fremont Street, residential entries have front stoops that have a height of at least three-feet on average. As proposed, the required townhouse units along Fremont Street would be at grade. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, Zoning Administrator continued it to June 15, 2006

14a. 2006.0358X (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

355-399 FREMONT STREET - northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 - Request under proposed Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and exceptions to allow greater than one parking space for every two units (Planning Code sections 151.1 and 309.1(b)(1)(B)), dwelling units exposure (Planning Code Sections 140 and 309.1(b)(1)(D), and to the tower spacing and sculpting requirements (Planning Code Sections 270(e)(3) and 309.1(b)(1)(A). The project is to demolish the existing three buildings (375 Fremont Street, 385 Fremont Street and 399 Fremont Street) and construct a residential project that would consist of a tower reaching 400-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouse and screening) that would be sited at the corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street; the project would also consist of a podium structure that would align Fremont Street and Harrison Street and would feature townhouse units. The project would include approximately 432 dwelling units and up to 432 parking spaces (one half of which would be independently accessible). The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS on the continuance

Sue Hestor

- I am requesting continuance of this item for a later date.

- Two challenges: documents were not available to me 10 days prior this hearing despite my specific request and arrangement with Mr. Snyder before the holidays; and

- They were available last Wednesday. At the same time, I was not given a copy and they were available to the developer's attorney.

- There was a big fat package for Andrew Junius in the pick up bin on Friday, May 26th but none for me.

- If I make arrangements to get things in time and I am told they were going to be available on the 25th, they should not be available for the first time on the 30th.

- I challenge your ability to hear the part of this that has a parking exception. The code section is different from the code section on the notice.

Andrew Junius, Project Sponsor Representative

-This is the second week that you have heard these kinds of complaints from Ms. Hestor.

-We are satisfied that the notices are proper and all the documents have been available and we are ready to proceed today.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 15, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

14b. 2006.0358V (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

399 FREMONT STREET - northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 - Request for a Variance to vary the specification for front entry stoops; Planning Code Section 827(d)(5)(C) requires that along the subject portion of Fremont Street, residential entries have front stoops that have a height of at least three-feet on average. As proposed, the required townhouse units would feature ramps that would lead to stoops that would be less than three-feet above grade on average. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 14a

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 15, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

15a. 2006.0543ETZ (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Consideration of an Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly [Board File No. 060483]- which would establish the  Western South of Market Planning Area Special Use District in the area generally bounded by Mission Street to the north, Townsend Street to the south, Division Street to the west and 4th Street to the east by (1) adding Planning Code Section 823 and (2) amending the Zoning Map.

SPEAKERS

Vicky Hart

- I propose that the two parts of the Western SoMa area be separated and be considered separately. An argument could be made to preserve the current character on 7th Street and encourage more small business, culture, and art.

Robert McCarthy, Representing McGuire Furniture at 1201 Bryant Street

- At the suggestion of the Director, we met with Mr. Alumbaugh and Dr. Ghosh a couple of months ago and suggested to them that visually we have always been considered as part of Western SoMa and that the freeway blocks us from the Eastern Neighborhoods.

- I am happy to report that they conquer that the use and geography make us appropriate to be part of Western SoMa and therefore we are requesting to have us added.

Anthony

- I support these things. I have attended most of the meetings from the Task Force and this is a good thing to do.

Jim Meko

- I just want to point out that this special use district certainly conforms to the agreement that we made to the Planning Commission when Western SoMa was carved out of the Eastern Neighborhoods process.

- It reflects the exact area that is defined in the Board of Supervisors resolution that created the Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force.

- 311 and 312 notifications are courtesy to the neighborhoods.

- This is basically all part of the incremental approach to a community plan.

Toby Levy, Vice-Chair of the Task Force

- What we are asking for is really to include us in notifications and extend the conditional use for formula retail. That is mainly because in the M zone, SLI or SLR previously existed.

- We appreciate your consideration.

Sue Hestor

- The Western SoMa process is one of the best planning processes that I have ever seen in the City. Everything they are asking for is very reasonable.

- I request that you approve it but think about industrial area notices as well.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-To add Lot 3528 and eliminate sub-section F on page 5.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17260

15b. 2006.0544ET (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Consideration of an Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly [Board File No. 060482]- establishing certain controls in the Western South of Market Planning Area Special Use District including (1) requiring Conditional Use Authorization for formula retail uses and (2) requiring neighborhood notice for particular building permit applications.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 15a.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-To add Lot 3528 and eliminate sub-section F of page 5.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17261

16. 2006.0436ETZ (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Consideration of an Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Peskin [Board File No. 060345]- amending (1) the Zoning Map in order to expand the Jackson Square Special Use District [SUD] and (2) the text of Planning Code in order to impose additional controls within the Jackson Square SUD, including requiring Conditional Use Authorization for all institutional uses on the ground level.

SPEAKERS

Jeff Quiroz, President of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco

- We own the building at 701 Montgomery, directly across the street from the Colombo building, and have been a vital part of the neighborhood for the past three years.

- We oppose the ordinance issued because it is unnecessary. The building has been designated as a landmark and carries with it a comprehensive preservation easement.

- If it is adopted, it would be inconsistent and contrary with the institutional use permitted in the Chinatown Commercial use, North Beach and Broadway districts.

- I ask the Commission to recommend against adoption of this ordinance or at least vote to table it for further study.

Luigi Brassi

- I am in support of the land use preservation on the Jackson Square District because there has been an increase of institutional uses in that area.

- Jackson Square is a very important district that is really iconic as the first neighborhood in San Francisco. It is an important historic cultural resource.

MOTION: To recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini and Olague

NAYES: Alexander

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

Motion failed

ACTION: Passed to the Board of Supervisors without any recommendations

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

17. 2006.0092ET (d. sider: (415) 558-6697)

Planning Code amendments relating to Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCD's) [Board File No. 060032] On January 10, 2006, Supervisors Mirkarimi and Ma introduced legislation which would have allowed certain existing MCD's to relocate irrespective of Planning Code restrictions on the proximity of new MCD's to schools and recreation buildings. On March 28, 2006 a substitute Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi, which instead would amend [1] grandfathering provisions for existing MCD's, [2] the definition of a  recreation building' with respect to proximity restrictions for new and existing MCD's, and [3] noticing requirements for MCD permits. The substitute Ordinance would also modify portions of the Health Code in order to make amendments to the MCD permitting process and MCD permit provisions.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Bill

- We are very concerned about the proposed changes and the due process.

- We would like to see the following changes made to the amendments: (a) limiting proximity to recreational and community buildings, (b) requirement to provide notices to occupants within 300 feet of proposed or existing MCD, and (c) require conditional use for any proposed MCD for Lake Shore Plaza.

Earl Rogers

- I have great concerns about this legislation mainly because it encourages illegal behavior.

- As pot becomes more available throughout the City, education and families are going down.

Dave

- Medical marijuana and pot clubs are dangerous. It is not the marijuana itself but the fact that is unregulated and has a high cash bias.

- This legislation has nothing to do at all with the medical marijuana to those who need it.

- The neighborhoods in the Western Twin Peaks do not want any pot clubs unless the marijuana is distributed by medical facilities regulated by City operators.

Michael Aldrich

- I am in favor of this legislation.

- Many of the medical clubs that I am familiar with are having a great deal of difficulty in meeting the regulations because the permit process is very difficult. They do not have big amounts of income sources.

Patrick

- The Board of Supervisors has deemed the City of San Francisco to be a sanctuary for medical cannabis and we want to reach out and work together for the long term.

- I strongly encourage the condition to recommend adoption of this ordinance as a good first in attempting to address some of the technical challenges of the regulations.

Shawna, Access of Love

- We support the grandfathering of existing MCDs to be able to continue providing safe access to patients.

- We do suggest special consideration due to hardships of relocation and prevent closure of clubs.

- Hopefully in the near future we will not hear any fear or misinformation.

Bob

- I am a medical cannabis patient and volunteer at the medical dispensaries.

- The grandfathering is important for those dispensaries that have played by the rules.

- I request to have special considerations to these organizations that are helping the ill people.

Greg

- I'm speaking in favor of the amendments and particular about the grandfathering clause.

- I think we need to protect this kind of system and think about the future when we do not want extortionist health clinics in town.

Kevin Reed

- I am requesting you to do anything you can to protect and save these dispensaries.

- For those who are going to need to relocate; they are going to find it very, very difficult.

- We have 11,000 patients in the City right now; we should really think about that when we allow these clubs to close down every day.

Rev. Randelyn Webster

- Since 1999 we have been active in the community. We advocate for our patients and we do everything we can for our patients with health and human services.

- We need medical cannabis facilities to remain in the City and to protect, preserve and educate the general public about it.

ACTION: Continued to June 22, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

18. 2006.0100C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

470 West Portal AVENUE - between Portola Drive and 15th Avenue, Lots 008 and 009 in Assessor's Block 2484 and Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2540 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(h) to convert an office building that was previously occupied by AT&T to a private secondary school operated by San Francisco Waldorf High School, located in a RH-1(D) [Residential-House, One-Family (Detached)] District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Joan Calderon, School Administrator

- We have been part of Independence School for 26 years and begun our high school in 1997.

- We started at Fort Mason and stayed for three years. We then moved to the Mission for six years and we have been looking for an affordable site to purchase.

- We have found a beautiful building and put down $600,000 non-refundable money to show our commitment.

- It is the home of our dreams that is affordable with a beautiful setting and needs very little renovation to become a school.

- We currently have 125 students in our high school.

- We are mid range in tuition. We are art oriented; community minded; and hope to remain a positive presence in San Francisco.

Yu Zhang

- I am a graduating student of the high school. I am becoming a new freshman at Stanford University.

- I realized that what I have achieved might never been possible if I did not have the diverse curriculum at Waldorf High School.

- It is very important for my high school to get this building. It is a very beautiful in a safe neighborhood and they will be able to serve the community.

Philipa Thomas

- I am a senior graduating and gong to Chicago to study physiology.

- [Shared an experience of attending public school in the elementary school and transfer to Waldorf High School.]

- I really appreciate the art and science departments and the variety for elective classes.

- At Waldorf; I got the security, support and strength from my teachers to put into what I want to be in the future and that has made me stronger person.

Pete Perez

- My front yard is in the back of the school. The issues in the neighborhood are traffic, parking and trees.

- [Submitted a letter from neighbors supporting the project.]

- This is a very good use for that building. The choices for this building would be commercial or dense housing. Neither would work for our neighborhood.

- It is a very safe seismic building and I like the idea of having students there.

Nelda

- I feel that they are going to take a positive attitude about how to beautify it as well as becoming concerned about any stabilization.

- I have looked at the parking condition and they are going to remain in there own parking lot and not on West Portal Street.

- I look forward to having them as my immediate neighbor.

Ken Crusca, Vice President of the West Portal Neighborhood Association

- [Read the letter sent from the association to Mr. Macris supporting Waldorf School and this project.]

- They have worked with us to address concerns raised by neighbors and they would be a great addition to our neighborhood.

David

- [Submitted letters of support from neighbors surrounding this property, our former neighborhood, West Portal Neighborhood Association, West Portal Merchants Association, and Centro Latino.]

Father David, Executive Director of the Raphael House

- The Waldorf School is an excellent program and there is a high involvement with the parents and children.

- I know the opinion of how fine a tenant the Waldorf School is. It is small school. We believe in being good neighbors with our parents and students.

- Waldorf has an educational environment that promotes healthy respect for every human being and teaches by example on how to work more efficiently to build a working and civil society.

Dick Hu

- This hearing was not properly noticed and that is one of the reasons that many of the neighbors are not here but they sent emails to the Commission.

- I have great concerns about this conversion. There is no DEIR [Draft Environment Impact Report]

- There is no connection between being a communication center and being a school.

- Traffic studies have not been conducted for this proposed use.

- All high schools bring noise, traffic, congestion and loitering in the neighborhood.

- We already have a high school in the neighborhood.

Ed Miller

- We did not find out about the conversion of this property until recently and we were told that the neighborhood represented us and we do not know why this is.

- We are not speaking about education but neighbors are concerned about the impact of the school in the neighborhood.

- West Portal Lutheran School is only one block away.

- Three concerns are: traffic congestion, safety and the lack of an EIR which is very needed when converting from a communication center to a school.

Greg

- I wrote a letter to the Planning Department regarding the issues of traffic and safety.

- This block is very unique form a traffic perspective and I feel that parents will be tempted to double-park. A full study should be done.

- [Submitted a copy of the letter sent.]

[Inaudible], Board Member of the School

- It sounds like traffic is the biggest issue.

- The number of people that worked at the communication center was 140.

- Traffic generation is not really big because we have 120 students. A third of them come on public transportation, a third car pool in, and a third comes by car.

- There is room for 22 cars to line up and wait for the students to come out.

- Parking should not be an issue because there is plenty of space on site.

- One of the speakers that said they did not know about this until recently was at the meeting on January at the West Portal Neighborhood Association.

[No name]

- I oppose this project because I feel that it is not going to be safe for us.

- Students have a tendency to loiter and in the City there are gangs everywhere.

- I do not believe this is the best use for that site.

Karen

- I am one of the founders of the San Francisco Waldorf School.

- We are the families that are committed to be here in San Francisco because we love it.

- The families make great sacrifices to continue living in the City and hope you take that into consideration.

David

- My two sons went to Waldorf School and what I saw the students do when they were on the Mission was to beautify the neighborhood and clean off the graffiti.

- They were a very positive force in the community for the neighborhood and the same thing would happen in West Portal.

Michael

- I am a student and regarding gang members, there are a lot of gang members in our current location and we pay a lot of attention to that. We do not loiter.

- The alley on the back of the school was a drug oriented community and we have made it an anti-drug zone specifically for the students.

- Our students are against that and we help the community to work on that as well.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

MOTION: 17262

19. 2006.0506C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

1320 Castro Street - west side between 24th Street and Jersey Street Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6506 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 728.42, 728.24, 728.41 to establish a full-service restaurant with a full bar and outdoor seating in the rear yard. The subject property is located in the 24th Street, Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Jim - Architect

- My client is a perspective purchaser of this building and as the applicant and project sponsor; they plan to live above the restaurant.

- It is a relatively modest restaurant in size and has the support of the neighbors and there is no opposition.

ACTION: Approved as amended to include the standard condition to get the permit within three years.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

MOTION: 17263

20. 2005.1208D (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

287-291 PAGE STREET - south side between Octavia and Laguna Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0852 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.28.6856. The subject property, which is a through lot fronting on two streets, contains two buildings with a total of four units, with the main building at the front of the lot containing three residential flats, and a cottage at the back of the lot containing one dwelling unit. The proposal is to convert the front building's authorized use from three dwelling units to two dwelling units, merging the two top flats, which are original to the subject building. The property is within an RH-3 (Residential House, Three-Family) District and an 80-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS on the continuance

[No name stated] - Architect and Project Sponsor

- Requested continuance to June 22 because we were given information that there may in fact not be a quorum today.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 22, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

21a. 2006.0586D (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

3969 23rd Street - south side between Noe and Sanchez Streets; Lot 032, in Assessor's Block 3653 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.20.7099, proposing to redesign the previously approved, non-complying rear deck and staircase, and to construct a one-hour rated firewall. This project is pending approval of Case #2005.0974V requesting a Rear Yard Variance in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

[Inaudible], DR Requestor Representative

- The plans show clearly that there is no distance between the properties.

- This proposed plan is not necessary and it would impact privacy and safety to the next door neighbor.

[No name]

- The approved plans are three feet from the property line and I do not see where there are differences in privacy and security issues from what is approved.

- The requestor had a variance and pushed back the wall impacting my privacy and security after approving her project in the past. She has set the precedence.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

21b. 2005.0974V (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

3969 23rd Street - south side between Noe and Sanchez Streets; Lot 032, in Assessor's Block 3653 - Request for a Variance from Planning Code Sections 134 and 188, to modify a previously approved non-complying rear deck, staircase, and firewall, creating a rear yard of 21-feet where a rear yard of approximately 51-feet, 6-inches is required in an RH-3 (Residential House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

NOTE: This item is to be decided by the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on 21a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator Badiner granted the variance

22a. 2005.0769D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

877 HAMPSHIRE STREET - east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 4089 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all residential demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.08.04.9508, proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Leigh Moltron, Project Sponsor Representative

- The new project is two family size homes, increasing the housing stock in the neighborhood and provides off street parking.

- There would be a driveway and on each side of it there is a terrace landscaping with a tree added to the house.

- There are bay windows added to the house, which is very much in context with the neighborhood.

- The top floor is set back 15 feet and the rear yard is being increased in size from what there is currently.

- It has gone through various reviews: historical, environmental and planning staff.

- We had public outreach with a meeting at the house and also the 311 notice. There was a question made by a neighbor and we responded to that. The neighbor was satisfied with it.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved the demolition

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

22b. 2005.0775D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

877 HAMPSHIRE STREET - east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 4089 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.04.9510 proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 25, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 22a.

MOTION: To not take discretionary review and approve the project

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander and Antonini,

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

MOTION FAILED

ACTION: In the absence of a substitute motion, the project is approved as proposed.

23. 2006.0537D (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

74-76 COLLINS STREET - east side between Euclid Avenue and Mayfair Drive; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1045 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.01.06.1629S, proposing to construct a one-story horizontal addition approximately 25 feet deep by 10 feet wide to the front and side of the existing fourth floor. The addition will accommodate a new bedroom and bathroom and a new roof deck will be located at the rear of the 4th floor addition (approximately 10 feet deep by 10 feet wide). The existing building is a four-story, two-family dwelling building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Steve Collins, Discretionary Review Requestor

- I live directly behind the proposed project.

- This would be the only 4-story house in the area, as far as I know. There are a couple of homes that are 4-story but they are corner houses. It is completely out of character with the neighborhood.

- I am representing six homeowners and I have a petition signed opposing this.

- There will be a meeting in a couple of weeks to re-propose the legislation that was introduced four years ago to Mayor Gavin when he was a Supervisor.

- We have met with Supervisor Alioto-Pier and she is favorable towards this legislation.

- This project restricts the open space and light and air on my backyard.

Alice Barkley, Representing Project Sponsor

- [Submitted a list of the neighbors supporting the project.]

- This is a very modest addition. It has a set back of 10 feet from the back and 18 feet from the front.

- The requestor spoke about light and air and clearly this addition is within the existing building footprint and the separation between the two buildings is about 60 feet.

- There are no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant the granting of any discretionary review.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee

24. 2005.0659C (T. WANG (415) 558-6335)

85 SAINT ELMO WAY- southeast side between Monterey Boulevard and Yerba Buena Avenue; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 3049 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 304 Planned Unit Developments, to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence of Consul General of the People's Republic of China, with a modification of rear yard requirements in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 4, 2006)

SPEAKERS on the continuance

Susan - President of Monterrey Home Owner's Association

- It is our understanding that the applicant has requested a continuance for July 13 and we would like to know how many of you would be present at that date.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 13, 2006

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

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: None

Adjournment: 9:53 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, October 25, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

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 10:00:25 PM