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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

January 20, 2005

January 20, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, January 20, 2005
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:47 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Rick Crawford; Matt Snyder; Sara Vellve; Joy Navarrete; Dan Sider; Marshall Foster; 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. 2004.1239DDDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

            2404 BROADWAY - north side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0562 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.08.0804 proposing various facade alterations and to construct side and rear horizontal additions to the existing three-story, single-family residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 27, 2005

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

        2. 2004.0849C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        1720-1730 FULTON STREET - north side between Central and Masonic Avenues; Lot 30 in Assessor's Block 1175 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 352 of the Planning Code to modify a condition previously imposed in Motion No. 14807 for Case No. 1998.0318C (the approval of the Petrini Plaza), The proposal would modify Condition No. 30 of the Motion to allow the project sponsor to merge two small storefronts at the Petrini Plaza for leasing to a financial service establishment (Washington Mutual Bank), rather than to a local independent merchant. The project is within an NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

        (Proposed for Continuance to February 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005

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

        3. 2004.0458E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

        566 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - The proposed project would include demolition of an existing 4,344 gross-square-foot, one-story retail/commercial building and rear storage building and construction of a five-story, 50-foot-tall mixed-use building which would contain 32 residential units on the second through fifth floors and retail/commercial use on the ground floor. The residential use would be 27,491 gross square feet (gsf) in area, and the retail/commercial space would be 4,344 gsf in size. The ground floor and basement levels would include 32 parking spaces designated for the residential use with ingress and egress from South Van Ness Avenue. The ground floor would contain the commercial space and residential lobby. The 12,253-square-foot site is located within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) zoning district and within a 50-X height and bulk district. The proposed project requires a conditional use authorization for residential use in the C-M district.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to February 17, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 17, 2005

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

        4. 2004.0904D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        364 WINDING WAY - north side between Drake and Prague Streets. Assessor's Block 6479 Lot 012. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.0308.8029, to construct a three story addition to the rear of the existing two to three story dwelling, in an RH-1 (D) (Residential House, One Family, Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the Project.

            (Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 24, 2005

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

        5. 2004.1169C (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

        1251 THOMAS AVENUE - west side between Ingalls and Hawes Streets, Lot 030, in Assessor's Block 4807 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to operate a fenced vehicle storage yard and towing business as defined in Sections 223(t) & (u), pursuant to Section 249.15(b)(2), located on a site in an M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District and a 40-X height and bulk district.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 9, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

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

      6a. 2004.0032D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        43 HAMILTON STREET - east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9296, proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

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

      6b. 2004.0033D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        43 HAMILTON STREET - east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9298, proposing the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

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

        7. 2004.0389D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        684 ARKANSAS STREET - west side between 20th and 22nd streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 4098 - Neighbor-Initiated Discretionary Review on the proposed conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling with vertical and horizontal extensions, under Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.22.5290. The site is 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 project.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 18, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 3, 2005

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

        8. 2003.1110T (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

        REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS - Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Planning Code to Allow a Required Second Means of Egress Adoption of an ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding a new section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow certain stairways that are a required second means of egress under the Building Code, as permitted obstructions in the rear yard. The California Building Code no longer allows fire escapes as a second means of egress in most cases. This proposed text amendment provides an exemption to meet the requirements of the Building Code. This ordinance also includes changes to Section 311 and 312 to require neighbor notification for the addition of these stairways.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 18, 2004)

            (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

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

        9. 2004.0607D (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

            215-217 COLE STREET - west side between Hayes and Fell Streets: Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1212 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.29.5983S, proposing to construct a vertical and rear horizontal addition and to renovate the existing three-story over garage two-unit structure. The project proposes to (1) add one residential dwelling unit at the top floor level, achieved by raising the roof level approximately 2.5 feet at the middle portion of the structure; (2) construct a horizontal addition by extending the rear building wall by approximately 7.5 feet at the first three floor levels; and, (3) renovate and retain the existing design components of the front facade of the structure. The property is located in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 28, 2004)

        DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      10. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        - She will be leaving early today because of a death in the family.

        - She apologized for this inconvenience to the public.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        Re: Redevelopment Agency

        - He acknowledged Commissioner Lee working for Redevelopment Agency.

        - He asked the Director or the Zoning Administrator to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency.

          Interim Director Macris Responded:

          - He and staff have been working with the Redevelopment Agency staff on delegation agreements. The first example of this will be coming before the Commission next week with the Transbay Terminal Area project.

          - There are still a difference or two that still needs to be "ironed out." He will be meeting with Redevelopment Agency staff this afternoon.

        Commissioner Olague:

        Re: Study in the Mission regarding PDR Use

        - She would like to hear an update on this.

          Interim Director Macris Responded:

          - This study is well underway.

          - A company by the name of EPS is working on this.

          - Staff is monitoring this closely and they are on schedule.

          - There are projects in the pipeline that will be looked at individually. Other projects will just have to wait until the 90-day period passes.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Redevelopment Agency

        - It would be beneficial to have a presentation from Redevelopment to get information on geological locations, jurisdiction, etc.

          Interim Director Responded:

          - This is very important and the right step to take.

          - He will be glad to arrange something like this.

        11. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Francisco DeCosta

        - In this City and County of San Francisco, the Planning Commission plays a very important role.

        - The Planning Commissioners should be fully aware of the housing element, the transportation document, etc. They should also pay attention to the City's infrastructure. It is time for the Planning Commission and the Public Utilities Commission to work together on projects and the development of San Francisco.

        NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT: Sue Lee

        ACTION: Approved

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

        NOMINATION FOR VICE PRESIDENT: Dwight Alexander

        ACTION: Approved

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

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        - She thanked everyone for her being elected as Commission President.

        - She acknowledged Commissioner Bradford Bell for taking on the responsibility of president of the Commission when they did not even know how to be a Commission.

        - There are a lot of tasks that the Commission and Planning Department need to take on.

        - There are comprehensive planning issues that need to be discussed with the Board of Supervisors and other city agencies.

        - There are issues on jobs, housing, transportation, infrastructure, etc. that need to be planned.

        - She is looking forward to continue working and dealing with the tasks at hand.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - He commended Commissioner Sue Lee for accepting the presidency of the Commission.

        - He thanked Commissioner Bradford Bell for her excellent work as present and as a member of this Commission.

        Commissioner Olague:

        - She thanked Commissioner Bradford Bell for giving the Commission an atmosphere of camaraderie.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        - He thanked Commissioner Bradford Bell for her work as president of the Commission--even during the times when there was a lot of tension and stress. Commissioner Bell brought a sense of fairness and balance during a time when it was very important to have this.

        - She was able to relieve a lot of the tension when a decision needed to be made.

        - He wished incoming president Sue Lee well for accepting the position.

        Commissioner Alexander:

        - He thanked the Commission for their trust in him as Vice President.

        - He commended Commissioner Bradford Bell in doing such an excellent job as president of the Commission.

        - He is looking forward to the challenges ahead.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        - He thanked Commissioner Bradford Bell for taking such a challenging position when there was a very divided Commission.

        - It was quite a challenge for a Commission to be able to work together [successfully] when half was appointed by the Mayor and half by the Board of Supervisors.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        - She thanked everyone for supporting her during those beginning times when sometimes she did not even feel she knew what was going on.

        - It was very challenging for her, but there were a lot of people and staff that had a lot of patience for her.

        - She thanked those people that were not always in agreement with her decisions but were able to speak to her about it afterwards.

        - She is here to support Commissioner Sue Lee in her role as president of the Commission.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      12. Director's Announcements

        Interim Director Macris:

        - He introduced Alicia John-Baptiste as the new Chief Administrative Officer.

        Zoning Administrator Reported:

        Re: 724-730 Van Ness Avenue (cross Street Turk)

        - On June 20, 2002, the Commission approved this project that consisted of 141 units.

        - Project sponsor stated that it would be rental, geared for students, etc.

        - The project was sold to someone else. The new project sponsor applied for 104 units.

        - He received a letter in August of 2004 that asked the question of whether or not the new project was in general conformity with what the Commission had originally approved.

        - He determined that it was not the same project.

        - The project sponsor appealed this determination and submitted a new proposal for 130 units. This would make it the same type of project.

        - He received an additional letter from the original sender, asking further question about a variety of issues, specifically rental versus for sale.

        - He then determined that the Commission made no mention about rental or for sale (except for the inclusionary housing).

        - The first letter was appealed before the Board of Appeals last night. However, there was a request to have this continued.

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        Re: Schedule something on the Calendar

        - When projects have been modified from the Commission's conditional use approval, she requested that they be scheduled before the Commission.

        - The Commission should discuss this in terms of their own action vs. the Zoning Administrator's interpretation.

        - She suggested that this be scheduled on February 3, 2005.

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

        BOS - None

        BOA:

        Re: Dolores Mews

        - The Board upheld the determination that it was within the bounds of the Conditional Use and did not need to come back.

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.

      Joe O'Donaghue

      Re: New Officers at the Commission

      - He congratulated Commissioner Sue Lee and Commissioner Alexander on their elections as President and Vice President.

      Re: The Permit Process

      - There are a lot of problems with the way a permit is obtained.

      - There has been a lot of talk about "undo influence" at the Board of Supervisors and people from the Mayor's Office.

      - It seems that their friend's projects have been put at the beginning of the line and this is unfair.

      - He will be putting forth a ballot measure that would prohibit any member or representative [of the Mayor's office or Board of Supervisors] from contacting any Commissioner about any particular project.

      - This would allow departments to be totally independent.

      - The Board controls the department through budget means.

      Francisco De Costa

      - He agrees with the previous speaker.

      - The interim Director has a lot to do.

      - There is a lack of environmental impact assessment at the Planning Department.

      - The Commission needs to work very closely with Building Inspection, Redevelopment Agency, etc.

      - An audit should be done on the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

      14. 2004.1167DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        1310 STANYAN STREET - east side of a n undeveloped portion of Stanyan Street between Clarendon Avenue and Mountain Spring Avenue. Assessor's Block 2706 Lot 035 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.15.8977, to construct a new single-family dwelling, three stories in height on a vacant parcel in an RH-1 (D) (Residential House, One Family, Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Steve Williams - Representing One Discretionary Review Requestor

        - The lot in question does not appear in any of the Sanborn maps.

        - The project does not have a rear yard.

        - The other lot is substandard.

        - The department would have given a different recommendation if staff had had the entire information.

        - This project should be returned for re-analysis.

        - The Building Department reports also gives information that is not correct.

        - There is no need to rush through this project.

        (-) William Marconi - 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

        - The project would result in a tiny house and would decrease the value of the neighborhood.

        - It would gravely affect the light and views of the house on the southeast corner of Stanyan Street.

        - The project would also result in a loss of open space.

        (-) Pennie Sempell

        - She lives on Stanyan Street.

        - She was denied vehicle access to her property.

        - She was also denied fire access to the rear of her house.

        - She is concerned about the legality of the construction. The project will take away a parking area for people that don't have a garage. The project infringes open space in the area.

        (-) Oleg Obuhoff

        - He is not against the variance.

        - There are some questions about the true owner of the property. There has been information that the property was either transferred or sold.

        - Most of the neighbors would like to preserve the open space.

        (-) David Weill

        - He lives on Mountain Spring Street.

        - He is opposed to the project because it is out of character with the single family dwelling structures in the area.

        - There is a lot of traffic in the area because of UC Med.

        - The driveway will take away some of the parking.

        - He moved into his home in 1971.

        - Before 1971, there was construction done to a home and there was water running out of the house. There is still water running out of the house so he is worried that another construction will make things worse.

        (-) Tav Matulla

        - She and her husband have lived in the area for many years.

        - She is against the project because it is very massive.

        - There are many issues with this project that need to be dealt with before the project is allowed to move forward.

        (-) Ted Hlavac

        - He is concerned with the project with the same issues as the previous speakers.

        - He is extremely concerned about the negative tactics that the project sponsor has done.

        (-) George Matulla

        - There are a lot of discrepancies with the reports.

        - The land maps are contrary to what is actually in the neighborhood.

        (-) Terry Senne

        - He lives on Stanyan Street.

        - He joins his neighbors opposing this project.

        - If there was a project that would be built to the detriment of the neighborhood it would be this one.

        (-) Cathleen Clark

        - She lives in one of the houses of the Stanyan Street steps.

        - She is opposed to the project because there has been a lot of deceit and dishonesty.

        - She is concerned with the destabilization of the hill.

        - There is no vehicular access to their homes. If this project is built with a driveway it would remove space for people to park their cars.

        (-) Leigh Sealy

        - This has been on the minds of the neighbors for many months.

        - Open space, parking, nature of the hill, water that rushes down the hill are all the concerns that neighbors have.

        - He would be most encouraged if the Commission would reconsider this project.

        (-) Doris Linnenbach

        - He agrees with the representative of the Discretionary Review requestor--this is not a simple project. This project cannot be "rubber stamped" for approval.

        - All the people who spoke would not come here if there were no real concerns.

        (-) Dennise Lapointe - Twin Peaks Improvement Association

        - The association has taken the stand to oppose this project because there are serious problems.

        - She submitted a letter with the issues of why they are opposed.

        (+) C.J. Healy - Ruben and Junius - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This is a very well designed project.

        - This is not a "City giveaway" project.

        - The lot is not substandard. The lot is about the same size as nearly every lot on Clarendon Avenue.

        - The project meets all the requirements of the Planning Code.

        - The issue of deceit, which was spoken about, is simply not true.

        - The project sponsor was very open about everything they have tried to do with the project.

        - The project is actually a very attractive one.

        (+) Mark Brand - Project Developer

        - He displayed a diagram of the proposed project.

        - They have made quite a number of good neighbor gestures.

        - He displayed another diagram showing how the house would not cause shadows to the adjacent house and how the light wells help with brining sun to the house.

        (+) Joe O'Donaghue

        - The question is that the project is conforming to the code.

        - Parking and open space is an issue of every development no matter what neighborhood.

        - There are issues for various agencies of the City.

        - This is a typical San Francisco case.

        ACTION: Hearing held. Public Comment closed. Item continued to February 17, 2005.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        15. 2004.1170D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        3635 20TH STREET - south side between Guerrero Street and Valencia Street, Lot 069 in Assessor's Block 3608 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.15.4246, proposing to merge the existing two units back to a single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District, the Liberty Hill Historic District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Sara Whitt

        - They purchased their home in 2004.

        - They currently live 10 houses away.

        - They are looking forward to moving in, staying in the neighborhood and improve the historic home.

        (+) Brett Gladstone

        - The original single family home was used as a boarding house.

        - One can hardly tell that there are two units.

        - At least $120,000 dollars needs to be invested on each floor to make the units livable.

        - This historic building has never lost its single-family character.

        - The project sponsor will take care of this home.

        (+) Amy Adamson - Project Architect

        - The home is in great disrepair.

        - The use of two independent units is very poor.

        - The mechanical and plumbing systems are substandard. The acoustic separations are substandard since there is no insulation. There is no heat in one unit. One of the bedrooms does not have a closet. To go into another room one has to go through the kitchen, etc.

        (+) John Barbey - Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association

        - He lives on the same street.

        - The subject project is like the anchor house of the neighborhood.

        - The house has very nice architecture but requires a lot of work.

        - The area has become quite desirable for affordability.

        (+) Alisa Criegel

        - She lives next door to the subject project.

        - She is in support of the merger.

        - The maintenance of this house is very important to the neighbors.

        - She supports all of the repairs that are proposed.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

    16. 2002.1305C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        1096 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE -previously Driscoll's Mortuary Chapel, northwest corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 22nd Street, Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 3615 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a full service restaurant and a place of entertainment that would be open until 2:00 am within a building that was previously used as a mortuary. Conditional Use authorization is required for (1) hours of operation between 11:00 pm and 2:00 am pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.27 and 790.48; (2) the establishment of other entertainment pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.48 and 790.38; (3) the establishment of a full service restaurant on a lot within ¼ mile of the 24th Street - Mission Neighborhood Commercial District Pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.42 and 727.42; (4) the establishment of a restaurant use on the second floor of a building designed for a single tenant pursuant to Planning Code Section 186.1(b) and 186.2(a); and (5) a full liquor license in association with a restaurant use (defined a "bar" use by Planning Code Section 790.22); the bar use would be required under Planning Code Section 186.1(e) to be transferred from an existing non-conforming bar at another location. No exterior alteration is proposed. The project is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and the Mission Alcoholic Restricted Special Use District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 29, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Lou Blazej - Representing Project Sponsor

        - He displayed a block and lot map of the project location.

        - The interior will not be changed.

        - The project will be very attractive to the neighborhood.

        - There is a 25-foot separation between the project location and the Buddhist Temple.

        - The Mission Anti Displacement Coalition is still in opposition. They need more time to review the project.

        - The use will be very affordable to the community and it will be family serving.

        (-) Jim Lappin

        - Many people have left.

        - There is a large number of alcohol serving establishments in the area.

        - In order to preserve the family neighborhood, this project should not be approved.

        - This project does not meet the Planning Code.

        - Any restaurant can thrive without a liquor license.

        - This project will only cause problems with the police and the neighbors.

        (-) Ralph Hibbs

        - It is stated that the project is a necessary and compatible project for the neighborhood.

        - The size of the establishment exceeds what is allowed.

        - The neighborhood is already struggling with gangs and violence.

        (-) Scott Dudley

        - He lives on Capp Street.

        - He supports properties and restaurants in the neighborhood but there are certain conditions that need to be established.

        (-) did not state name

        - He received the notice in the mail that the project was preliminarily approved.

        - Alcohol makes people not know what they are doing.

        - To close at 2:00 in the morning is terrible when people do not know what they are doing

        - He read a letter from a friend who is opposed to the project.

        (-) Su-Ching Chen

        - She is opposed to the project.

        - She has had the personal experience of having two tires of her vehicle stolen.

        - She is afraid that there are people who will give your car [an unwelcome] evaluation.

        (-) JoEllen Ku (spoke through an interpreter)

        - She is a member of the Buddhist Church.

        - They are working very hard on the harmony of the project.

        - They usually use the church as a retreat house.

        - There is already a nightclub across the street.

        - There is always glass from vehicles near the curb, which they have to clean up.

        (-) Chung Ning Huynh

        - She submitted a letter from some who are against the project

        - There is junky furniture there as well.

        - She is totally against the project.

        (-) did not state name (spoke through an interpreter).

        - She does not understand English and this makes her uncomfortable.

        - The project sponsor has not been very nice to her.

        - She is opposed to the project because there are no good neighbor gestures.

        (-) Richard Wille

        - He lives on South Van Ness.

        - The pictures did not show the building that he lives in.

        - He already knows what kind of noise the project will create.

        - This will make his life unlivable.

        - This type of project does not belong in an area that is a residential neighborhood.

        (-) James Bucker

        - He is concerned about the size and scope of the project.

        - He is opposed to the serving of liquor at such late hours.

        - He is not opposed to a restaurant type project.

        - He has met the owners and knows that they are nice people.

        - The owners have not been taking care of the building.

        (-) Heidi Hess

        - She has concerns about having a bar at this location.

        - She lives close to the project site.

        - The owner has been unclear about menu and what type of food they want to bring in.

        - A bar open until 2 a.m. would be a negative to the neighborhood.

        - The mortuary had a parking lot but that lot was sold and it will be developed with something else. She is worried about parking.

        - There has been a lot of graffiti recently.

        - If the restaurant does not do well, she fears that the building will return to being neglected.

        (+) Phillip Lesser - Mission Merchant's Association

        - There are a lot of problems when a building is abandoned.

        - When he did outreach with the Buddhist Temple, he mentioned that there was a search committee to tastefully deal with this particular project.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

        (+) Rick Merdo

        - He is the executive chef of the project.

        - He has worked at various restaurants.

        - He wants to make this a [true] restaurant.

        - He would offer seafood with a southwestern twist.

        - He has surrounded himself with good management.

        - He hopes that he can fulfill the vision of the owners.

        (+) Eileen Long

        - She has lived near the property for many years.

        - She is one of the project sponsors.

        - She anticipates creating many jobs and many of the employees will live locally.

        - She hopes that the Commission will vote favorably on the project.

        (+) Flip Sarrow - President of the Haight Ashbury Association

        - Some of the owners of this project own a bar in the Haight.

        - The establishment on the Haight has always been managed well.

        - They have been conscientious of the community.

        - He knows that the project sponsors will do the same with the project on South Van Ness.

        (-) Richard Marquez - Mission Anti-Displacement Association

        - He met with the project sponsors.

        - They have come to a no agreement status after they met to discuss the project.

        - There are concerns about the hours of operation, the menu pricing agreement, etc.

        - They will not be able to support this project.

        (+) Neil Wright

        - He has lived on South Van Ness for three years.

        - He has lived previously in the Mission for nine years.

        - The Mission District has a very large problem of crime.

        - He owns a business on Mission Street.

        - He has met with several police officers about the crime issue.

        - The only way to change the issue of crime is to change the neighborhood and allow different businesses there.

        - The project sponsors will be investing a lot of money to make this a better place to live.

        (+) Matthew Brennan

        - He lives on Capp Street.

        - He supports this project. It will be a great addition to the neighborhood.

        (-) Shirley Wong

        - She lives on South Van Ness.

        - She supports this project and the owners should be commended for what they are trying to do.

        - The project sponsors will revitalize this property.

        - Many business owners in the area have done a lot to clean up the area.

        - The project sponsors will work with the neighbors and promote a safer, cleaner neighborhood.

        (+) Mark Brennan

        - He supports this project.

        - There are vagrants living in doorways and this project will stop that.

        - The building is a very nice building and he hopes to preserve the structure.

        (+) Brian Maloney

        - This is a very important structure.

        - Mike Driscoll was a Supervisor of San Francisco.

        - He has restored various buildings in the area.

        - It is very difficult to control graffiti.

        - The building will be completely soundproof, completely coded, and upgraded.

        (+) Natasha Maloney

        - She was born and raised in the Mission.

        - She has fond memories of the Mission.

        - She will be working as an event planner if the project is approved.

        - This will be a bar and restaurant that will value diversity.

        - The goal is to enrich the culture of the Mission District.

        (-) Sue Hestor

        - She has been working on Mission rezoning issues for eight years.

        - The trouble with this project is that the project sponsor is asking for the "moon."

        - If the project sponsor would ask for regular hours there would not be so much controversy.

        - She regularly goes down South Van Ness late. There are a lot of restaurants on South Van Ness and most are not open past 10:00 p.m.

        - There will be a huge parking demand.

        - If this place were located on Mission Street there would not be a neighborhood war.

        - The only thing that should be approved is the restaurant part of the project.

        (-) Jennifer Lin

        - She is a member of the Buddhist Temple.

        - She is opposed to the project.

        - The people that are supporting the project did not address liquor consumption.

        - No one is against having a restaurant.

        - They will be happy that the building has a compatible business that is favorable to the community.

        (+) Joe O'Donoghue

        - This project has a clash of two cultures.

        - He knew that the project sponsor would encounter a lot of controversy to try to establish a business at this location.

        - Every area has quality of life issues so things need to be balanced.

        - It is important to think of how this project can be made viable as well as the right for neighbors to have peace and quite.

        ACTION: Approve the Conditional Use with modifications:

            1) Condition No. 4 should read: The facility may operate with a full liquor license, or as a bar use as defined by Section 790.22 only in conjunction with the full service restaurant / banquet facility use and only after it has been demonstrated to the Zoning Administrator that the bar use has been transferred from an existing non-conforming bar within the subject NC-1 District or within the Mission 24th Street NCD. However, the restaurant / banquet facility may operate as a full service restaurant / eating place as defined by Alcoholic Beverage Control License Type 41 which allows minors to be on the premises and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with a bona fide eating place.

            2) Condition No. 5 should read: For the proposed use to serve alcohol under with a full alcoholic license, the use must meet the definition of a "bona-fide restaurant" under Planning Code Section 781(c).

            3) Project Sponsor may bring back project before the Commission within a period of 6 months.

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

        NAYES: Alexander

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16930

    17. 2004.0574C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        1656 SHAFTER AVENUE - north side between 3rd Street and Lane Street, Lot 005A in Assessor's Block 5342 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to subdivide the existing 50-feet wide by 100-foot deep lot, which contains two single-family dwellings, into two lots with one resulting lot having a width of only 23-feet. Conditional Use authorization is required to establish a lot less than 25-feet wide under Planning Code Section 121(f). The subject property is within an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Olague

        MOTION: 16931

        18. 2004.0906EC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        981 WASHINGTON STREET - south side between Powell and Stockton Streets, Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 0211 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to expand the Chinese Independent Baptist Church. The project would add a four-story, 4,600-square-foot addition at the rear of the existing church, which is currently 7,120 square feet in area and four stories high. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Lincoln Lew - Project Architect

        - The church is one of the oldest institutions in Chinatown.

        - The church has also been a leader in the community.

        - They would like to expand their services and need space to grow.

        - He gave a general architectural description of the project.

        - The project has a large community neighborhood support.

        (-) Dennis Leung

        - He and his family live on Powell Street.

        - There are about 30 people who oppose this project.

        - His family wants to remain living there.

        - They are concerned about the adequacy of air. Powell Street is a very congested street.

        - The project sponsor does not want to provide a setback of 10 feet. They will only agree to five (5) feet.

        (-) Alan Leung

        - He was born and raised on Powell Street.

        - When he looks out his back window, he will see a concrete window.

        - His mom just had open-heart surgery and really enjoys the fresh air and the sunlight coming in.

        - He has lived there 45 years and the church has never had any intention to expand.

        (+) Amos Lee - Pastor

        - He appreciates the concern of neighbors.

        - The church has been in existence for 100 years.

        - There are some churches in Chinatown that are moving their ministries out of Chinatown.

        - They would like to remain in the area and continue to serve the neighbors.

        - For the last 10 years, they have been very responsible.

        - They would like to expand their senior and youth ministries especially to those at risk.

        - Some Supervisors support the expansion.

        (+) Sam Leong

        - He is a native San Franciscan.

        - He works at the church as a deacon and psychologist.

        - There are many youth that need support and guidance, especially when their parents work most of the day.

        - The project would open a youth center for these youth to hang out in.

        - Many families in the neighborhood have children that need to go to a place where they can receive tutoring.

        - They will expand their after school program.

        (+) Gina Zhou

        - She is the president of the senior fellowship of the church.

        - They serve not only members of the church but also members of the community.

        - They want to provide a warm and caring place for the seniors.

        - Many seniors are alone and need a place to be involved and welcomed.

        - She hopes that the Commission will agree to not setting back five feet.

        (+) Raymond Yee

        - He is part of the church and a professor.

        - Many families today have either one parent to take care of the children and/or both parents work all day.

        - The enrollment of the church has grown in the last three years so now there is a demand for space.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve the project with no changes because every bit of space is crucial.

        (+) Yim Fong Wong

        - He read a letter from Jim Fong Wong who is in support of the project.

        (+) Mary Go

        - She is a member of the church.

        - She read two letters from members who are in support of the project.

        - The first is from Ms. Ana Lee who is the principal of the school and the second is from a parent of a child who benefits from the church program.

        (+) Catherine Chan

        - She has been a member of the church for about 30 years.

        - She remembers when she came to this country and her parents did not speak English. Her parents had to work extra hours so they did not have time for their kids. The church allowed her to spend her time doing good things.

        - There is a need for an elevator and handicap access.

        - There is also a need for more restrooms.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve the project as presented.

        (+) Maggie Tam

        - She and her family recently came to San Francisco.

        - She is a member of the church.

        - They have made many friends since they became members.

        - She and her husband had urgent business to take care of in Hong Kong and she was able to leave her three daughters with members of the church.

        - She is glad to see that the church is growing.

        (+) Lucy Mark

        - She read a letter from a senior member of the church who is in support of the project.

        - Lucy Mark stated that she is in support of the project as well. She is an elderly person and knows that elderly and handicapped person need to be members of the church.

        - The expansion would allow accessibility for them.

        (+) Ancy Kwong

        - She is a member of the church and she sees the need for the extra space.

        - When the building committee proposed the expansion, the church members agreed with the proposal.

        - Between the members and the committee, they have raised thousands of dollars for the expansion.

        - Many of the people here have been here all day because they are passionate about the project.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve the project as proposed.

        (+) Johnny Tang

        - He is a deacon and member of the church.

        - The expansion is not just to have a high building but for a better and larger facility to serve the community.

        - Every inch of the proposed project will help the church and it's members.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve the project as proposed.

        (-) Cynthia Koon

        - She is a property owner behind the lot of the church.

        - She inherited the building from her mom.

        - She is a graphic artist and needs all the natural sunlight possible.

        - She supports the setbacks proposed.

            ACTION: Approved with the following amendments to Conditions of Approval:

            1) Condition of Approval No. 3 shall read: The proposed addition shall incorporate a five-foot setback along the western property line.

            2) Condition of Approval No. 4 shall read: The Project Sponsor shall meet with officials from Gordon J. Lau Elementary School to develop a construction plan (access, schedule/timetable, street closures, etc.).

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16932

        19. 2004.0940C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        1726 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Cole and Shrader Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 1229 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 790.130 of the Planning Code to locate an approximately 4,600 square foot Financial Service (a branch of Well Fargo Bank) within the ground floor of a recently constructed mixed-use building. Conditional Use is required as the proposed size of the bank exceeds the principally permitted use size of 2,499 square feet. The site is within the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-/+) Ted Loewenberg

        - He supports having a bank on Haight Street.

        - However, there is another issue about this site. About 6 months ago Urban Outfitters was rejected because there were a large number of similar merchants in the neighborhood.

        - Wells Fargo is a formula business that has an excess of 2,500 sf, etc.

        - Competition will not be served if the bank is approved.

        - It is important that the Commission determine what free market is.

        (+) Flip Sarrow - Haight Street Association

        - Haight Street did not need Urban Outfitters but they do need a bank.

        - They have spent several years trying to get banks to come to the Haight.

        - The merchant's overwhelmingly need this bank.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

        (+) Ron Mahoney

        - The Haight needs a bank and this is a "no-brainer."

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16933

        20. 2004.0560E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

        787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET) - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the construction of a five-story, approximately 50-foot tall, 29,653 gross-square-foot (gsf) residential building with 56 single room occupancy (SRO) units. The ground floor would contain a lobby, a manager's office, a community room for the residents and 8 SROs. The second through fifth floors would include 12 SRO units on each. No off-street parking or off-street loading would be provided. A 900-square-foot roof deck would be provided as common usable open space meeting the requirements of the Planning Code. The project site is 6,124 square feet in size and currently used as a 20-space surface parking lot, located on the northeast corner of Brannan Street and Gilbert Street in the South of Market District. Pedestrian access to the building lobby and the community room would be through one door mid-lot on Brannan Street. All of the units would be rental units designated as permanently affordable to households with income not exceeding 50% of the City's median income. The project site is zoned SLI (Service Light Industrial) and is within a 50-X height and bulk district. Conditional Use authorization is required for SRO units in the SLI district, and parking, rear yard, and permitted obstruction variances would be required for the proposed project.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Randy Shaw

        - He would like a continuance.

        - He would like the case to be first on the date it is continued to.

        Bill Graziano

        - He agrees with the continuance request.

        - He would like to have the correct plans for review.

        Jerry Scott

        - There is a significant environmental problem in the area.

        - She submitted a letter to the planner, which gives a list of the people who were to be noticed about the environmental review.

        - Because this was not done, she has requested a continuance.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        21a. 2004.0560EKCVD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

            787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET), southwest corner of Gilbert Street; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 3784 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the construction of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in a Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District pursuant to Planning Code Section 817.16. The proposal would construct a new five-story building containing fifty-six SRO dwelling units, each of approximately 400 gross square feet, on a vacant parcel currently used for parking. The property is within an Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District, an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 20.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        21b. 2004.0560EKCVD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

            787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET), southwest corner of Gilbert Street; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 3784 - Request for (1) a Modification of rear yard requirements pursuant to Code Section 134(e)(1) and 307(g), and (2) Variances from [a] permitted obstruction limits for bay windows set forth in Code Section 136(c)(2)(B) and 136(c)(2)(D) and [b] off-street parking requirements set forth in Code Section 151. A Variance from parking requirements is required because no off-street parking spaces are proposed while the Code would require three spaces. A Variance from permitted obstruction limits is required because bay windows of a maximum depth of three feet and maximum width of sixteen feet are proposed while the Code would limit maximum depth of some bay windows to two feet and maximum width to between nine and fifteen feet. A Modification of rear yard requirements is required because intermittent yard spaces of no more than five feet in depth are proposed while the Code would require a rear yard of at least fifteen feet. The proposal would construct a new five-story building containing fifty-six SRO dwelling units, each of approximately 400 gross square feet, on a vacant parcel currently used for parking. The property is within an Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District, an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 20.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        21c. 2004.0560EKCVD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

            787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET), southwest corner of Gilbert Street; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 3784 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of a project which would create housing within an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ), as required under Commission Resolution 16202 for all such projects. The proposal would construct a new five-story building containing fifty-six SRO dwelling units, each of approximately 400 gross square feet, on a vacant parcel currently used for parking. The property is within an Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District, an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 20.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 3, 2005.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        22. 2004.0915C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

        1598 DOLORES STREET - northwest corner of 29th Street; Lots 40 through 52, inclusive, in Assessor's Block 6618 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify conditions of approval set forth in Planning Commission Motion Number 16445 as modified by Board of Supervisors Motion Number M02-163 and relating to Planning Department Case Number 2000.1058C to allow payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee rather than provide on-site affordable housing, pursuant to inclusionary housing policies set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16350. In September of 2002, the City authorized construction of two 4-story buildings on the subject property containing a total of 13 units and up to 26 independently accessible off-street parking spaces; both buildings are now complete. Conditions of approval require one of the proposed units to be provided as a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. This proposal would modify previous conditions of approval to allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to the Mayor's Office of Housing rather than provide the required BMR unit on-site. No physical work is proposed. The property is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 29, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 17, 2005.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        23. (M. FOSTER: (415) 558-6362)

        OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Informational presentation on the proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan and SUD. Staff will provide an overview of the Plan's key goals and proposals, outline the key issues related to the proposed Special Use District, and describe the schedule for further Planning Commission review.

        Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required by Commission

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Meeting held. Informational presentation only. No action required.

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))

None

Adjournment: 9:10 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Alexander, Olague

      EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:15 PM