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

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

April 19, 2007

April 19, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 19, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Erika Jackson, Viktoriya Wise, Johathan Purvis,

Dan Dibartolo, Jonas Ionin, Michelle Glueckert, Sophie Middlebrook, Aaron Starr, Leigh Kienker, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2004.0803E (S. MICKELSEN: (415) 558-4481)

41 Tehama Street - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project site (Assessor's Block 3736, Lots 74,75,76, 77 and 78A) is located in the Financial District on the south side of Tehama Street between First and Second Streets, adjacent to elevated freeway ramps to the south and west. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a 95-space surface parking lot and one-story storage shed and the construction of an approximately 302,200-gross-square-foot (gsf), 23-story, approximately 220-foot-tall, 198-unit residential building. The proposed development would include three subsurface parking levels with approximately 76 independently accessible parking spaces and 36 bicycle parking stalls, with primary pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access from Tehama Street. The approximately 22,009 square-foot project site is within the C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office Special Development) zoning district and a 200-S height and bulk district. The proposed project would require certification by the Zoning Administrator for transfer of development rights (TDRs); a Conditional Use authorization (CU) to increase dwelling unit density; and a variance from dwelling unit exposure requirements. The proposed project would also require exceptions to height limits for upper-tower extensions, separation-of-tower and rear yard requirements.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2007)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

2. 2004.0803EKXCV (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558-6291)

41 Tehama Street - south side of Tehama Street between First and Second Streets, Lots 074, 075, 076, 077 and 078A in Assessor's Block 3736 - The project would merge five lots and demolish the existing surface parking lot with 93 parking spaces in order to construct a 23-story, 220 foot-tall residential building that would contain 198 dwelling units with below-grade parking, accessed from Tehama Street, for up to 162 parking spaces. The project site is within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office Special Development) District, a 200-S Height and Bulk District and the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2007)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

3. 2005.0351E (V. WISE: (415) 558-5955)

700 VALENCIA STREET - Lot 001 of Assessor's Block 3588, bounded by Valencia, 19th, Lapidge and 18th Streets - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would include demolition of an existing building and construction of a five-story, 50-foot-tall mixed-use building totaling approximately 22,662 square feet. The building would include nine dwelling units, nine parking spaces and one commercial unit. Vehicular access to the garage would be via 18th Street. Access to the commercial unit would be at the corner of Valencia and 18th Street and along Valencia Street. The project site in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and is within a 50-X height and bulk district. The project site is in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area and is subject to the Housing/Mixed Use Guidelines.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 15, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 26, 2007 May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to May 10, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

4. 2007.0297D (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

700 Valencia Street - southwest corner of Valencia Street and 18th Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.04.14.0087 proposing to construct a new 50-foot tall structure where a small car sales structure currently sits. The new structure would contain nine dwelling units, nine off-street parking spaces and approximately 1,700 square feet of ground floor retail. The property is within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 26, 2007 May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

- There are similar projects within 75 feet away from each other at 700 and 736 Valencia Street.

- They should be heard together because of similar issues to confront -- affordability and rear yard impacts being the main ones.

- Questioned what the standards and conditions are for latest rezoning in the neighborhood.

David Silverman

- I represent the 736 Valencia Street Project Sponsor and differ from Ms. Hestor's suggestion.

- They are different projects and each stands on its own merit.

- Request that 736 Valencia Street Project go forward as scheduled.

ACTION: Continued to May 10, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

5. 2006.0766EX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

345 STOCKTON STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, Lot 16 in Assessor's Block 295, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) Zoning District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Review under Planning Code Section 309 of the renovation of an existing building (Grand Hyatt Hotel) involving a reconfiguration of the lobby and outdoor public plaza area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

6. 2006.1148KC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1149 Jackson Street - south side between Jones and Taylor Streets, Lot 019B in Assessor's Block 0189 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to (1) construct an addition above a height of 40 feet in a residential zoning district. The proposed project is the addition of a partial fifth floor to the existing four-story, six-unit building. The project site is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

B. 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

C. 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.

7a. 2005.1062BV (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

650 TOWNSEND STREET - north side of Townsend Street between 7th Street and 8th Street, Lot 009 in Assessors Block 3783 - Request for office allocation pursuant to Planning Code Section 321 et seq. to authorize 375,151 square feet of office space. The proposal is to convert approximately 269,680 square feet of business service and approximately 105,471 square feet of exhibition space to office space within the existing building. The existing 269,680 square feet of office space and 30,730 square feet of retail space would remain. No new construction is proposed. The project site is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, and 65-X/100-X Height & Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Harry O'brian, Project Sponsor

-We are ready to present the project today if needed.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 26, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

7b. 2005.1062BV (M. GLUECKERT (415) 558-6543)

650 Townsend Street - north side of Townsend Street between 7th and 8th Streets, Lot 009 in Assessors Block 3783 - Off-Street Parking Variance Sought - The building would contain 644,831 square feet of office space and 30,730 square feet of retail space. The proposed use would require a total of 1,373 parking spaces on the site. Currently, the site provides up to 971 parking spaces, via on-site parking and through the use of a valet parking system. A variance is required for the parking deficit of 402 spaces. The project site is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, and 65-X/100-X Height & Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 7a

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 26, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya.

  • D.REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2005.0937D (Tape IA; IB; IIA; IIB) (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

736 VALENCIA STREET - west side, between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 3588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.08.4114, proposing to construct a new mixed use building on a lot currently containing a 22 space private surface parking lot. The proposed structure would contain eight dwelling units over 750 square feet of commercial space and eight off-street parking spaces on the ground floor, and is located in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:Take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted with conditions.

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor, Attorney for Discretionary Review Requestor

- Requested to be allowed to see presentation of new changes first.

- Information was not provided.

Toby Libbie, Architect

  1. One of the neighbor's concerns was height.
  2. Garage is shorter.
  3. Set back of 5-feet on the front to allow plants and create a smaller appearance.

Sue Hestor

  1. This is one of three projects in process on Valencia Street.

- All of them should be considered at the same time with the changes coming to this neighborhood.

  1. Requested continuance to May 10.

- Impacts would be substantial because new zoning for set backs of 25 feet and not 5 feet, and it prohibits 1-to-1 parking ratio.

- If the main reason is to provide housing for project sponsor's employees, there should not be any opposition to condition it to not be converted to condominiums.

Julie Ledbetter

  1. I am very concerned about developments in the neighborhood.
  2. Requested an opportunity to consider all three projects in process and not just by piece.
  3. Planning controls coming should be applied.
  4. The Mission is a very low-income community and there is no housing to serve it.

Alexander Friend

- I am very concerned about condominiums because it is not going to serve this community.

  1. We need to be a part of this very substantial change.

Peter Gabel

  1. Many of us in the community are just becoming aware of these three projects.

- This community needs a moratorium on these three projects to maintain its unique current quality and character.

Pha Pha Hamilton

  1. The height of these projects is not consistent with the area.
  2. Murals are very important and would be blocked.
  3. Concerned about the lack of affordability.
  4. Schools are closing because people are moving away from the city.

Karen

  1. All three projects should be considered together.
  2. Lack of affordability is the main concern

Kamara Shephard

- Read a letter of opposition from New College Director.

  1. Main concern is lack of affordable housing.

Teresa Mejia

  1. Read a letter from Board of Women's Building.
  2. Project does not help the district because we need affordable housing.

Danny Wala

  1. Project would not provide benefits to the neighborhood.
  2. Tall luxury buildings would block sun, view and Victorian-style houses.

Nick Pagoulatos

  1. It is important to focus on how the process is.
  2. The plan for this neighborhood has taken efforts from the community.
  3. These projects are processing over 100 units and less than 10 are affordable.

- Continue this project to include proper community process and new policies for this district.

Robert Coller

- Size, site, and scale of the project are out of character. These are very important in a neighborhood.

  1. It needs a comprehensive review.

Kim Malchewski

  1. Proposition M's mission and character is to preserve family housing.
  2. This project does not help family housing needs nor serve the community.

- It is very expensive and not consistent with neighborhood character

David Silverman, Project Sponsor

- This project was filed in September 2005.

  1. Notices were sent out in the middle of January this year.

- The Discretionary Review requestor has refused to meet with us and mediate his main concern of market rate housing.

  1. There is no proof of extraordinary circumstances or burden. Therefore, we are requesting approval of this project.

Larry Del Carlo, President of Mission Housing

  1. Support this project because the Mission District needs all type of housing.
  2. Most rental residents do not have opportunities to buy homes in the city.

Tuper Markers

  1. Support this project.
  2. We need more residential areas. It is a vital part of my future neighborhood.

Terri Zucker

- I have known the owner for a long time and he is a very hard working neighbor who is fully willing to collaborate.

  1. The lot is vacant and this would be a good use for it.

Don Laurito

  1. I am a 12 years employee of the project sponsor.
  2. This is an opportunity to live with my family close to work.

Jeff Vigil

  1. My bedroom faces the lot and lack of retail use increases disturbances at night.

- This lot should have been put in use long time ago. It would minimize activities in the lot and I'd have a more quite time.

Megan Musbach

  1. Owner has mention he will use this project as rental housing for his employees.
  2. This project is very small and it should be dealt with today.

Jeremy Paul

  1. I am impressed with employee stability being there for a long time.
  2. This site was a four-story Valencia hotel. It has been empty since the 30's.

- Asked the Commission to support the owner trying to survive and provide housing for his employees.

Jason Savelli, Cherin's Appliances

  1. Support this proposal. It would benefit the neighborhood.

Sergio Nunez

  1. Employed by project sponsor for 6 years.
  2. This project would allow me to live with my family next to work.

Alex Luigi

  1. I have been with the company for over 17 years.

- It would benefit my family to rent a unit in this project. I would be able to spend more time with my daughters.

Wenny Pangilinan

- I would like to see this project go up and live in one of the units next to work.

Jefrin Calo

  1. I support project.
  2. My family is expanding and I would like to live close to work in case of an emergency.

Lisa Honor

  1. Having this building would empower the community by maintaining the automobile shop.

Ron Mallia, Owner

  1. I have serviced cars for over 25 years in this community. I bought this lot in 1995.

- I just want to build these 8 family, residential, rental units for my employees and their families to come back to the city.

- There is a misunderstanding. There is a flyer around saying that luxury homes are replacing the auto shop. It is not true.

Jesse Waters

  1. I support this very needed project.
  2. It is not polite for people to come and raise their voice against; to share an opinion.

Douglas Jovel

  1. Worker for one year and half supporting the construction.
  2. It would provide an opportunity to rent a more comfortable apartment.

Joey Chinaman

  1. I have been in the neighborhood for 18 years.
  2. This project would prevent criminal activities.
  3. I am a victim of a robbery. A thief jumped over the fence into my property through the empty lot.

Terence Biggins

  1. Support the project.
  2. Somebody mentioned what the neighborhood is going to look like in 20 years.
  3. I am afraid it is going to look the same -- an empty lot inviting criminal activities.

Ana Sanchez

  1. I live in Richmond and sometimes get home late because of the long distance.
  2. Please support this project.
  3. I have never seen any employer supporting his employees this way.

Toby Levine

  1. I'm in support of this project.
  2. It complies within the code and changes were made per request.
  3. It is a fine effort to assist his employees by constructing housing in the neighborhood.

[No name]

  1. I have the most recent draft Mission Plan, containing 47 pages.
  2. The proposed height in the plan is 55 feet. This project is 53 feet.
  3. It is consistent and in keeping with the neighborhood character.
  4. Support the project.

Tobbie Libby

  1. This project was designed with new rezoning in mind.
  2. 5 units have 2 bedrooms and 3 units have 3 bedrooms. It is a family-unit building.

James Nunemacker, Mission Miracle Mile

  1. We are in full support of this project.
  2. It is sad that it may not be approved because of the language.
  3. There would be no loan for this building with springing conditions.

Connie Romero

  1. I strongly support this project.
  2. Owner is supporting his employees by providing housing.

Jerry

  1. It is about time to use this vacant lot.
  2. I urge you to approve it as is and do not include springing conditions.

John

  1. Support the project. We need housing in the Mission.

- Submitted documents supporting that the bank would not lend with springing conditions.

Richard

- Support this project.

  1. The Project Sponsor has a business and he would not be considered as a developer.

- It stands on its own merit and not on future potential fees.

Gina

  1. The automobile business has declined.
  2. Consider what that repair shop is paying for mortgage on an empty lot.
  3. We would be losing housing and the repair shop. I hope you vote in favor of this project.

John Lira

  1. This is the kind of property we need. I ask that you encourage this attitude.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved with Modified Conditions:

-Include a public benefit fee of $13 per square foot for residential development and $4 a square foot for commercial development.

-Minimize appearance of the garage.

-Design of the eastern bay window [on top of the garage] to rise up further and match more with the quality of surrounding window material.

-5 foot set back at the rear elevation.

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

NAYES: Olague and S. Lee

9. 2005.0030E (Tape IIB) (V. WISE: (415) 558-5955)

3400 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET - Lot 004 of Assessor's Block 6569, bounded by 26th Street, Cesar Chavez Street, Bartlett Street, and Mission Street - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for demolition of the existing building (most recently a retail paint store) and construction of a new four-story building with a 12,000-square-foot Walgreens store and up to three smaller retail spaces on the ground floor, as well as 60 one-, two-, and three-bedroom condominiums above. The building would be about 115,000 gross square feet in size and approximately 50 feet in height. A total of about 97 parking spaces would be provided, with most located in a basement-parking garage. Access to the residential and employee parking garage would be from Bartlett Street, while access to surface-level customer parking for the retail stores would be from Cesar Chavez Street. The project site is located within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and a 50-X height and bulk district. The project site is in the Easter Neighborhoods Planning Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Guadalupe Arriola, Mission Anti-displacement Coalition

  1. This project would substantially impact traffic, and impose social and economic impacts on this community.
  2. The demographics of this neighborhood are very different form other parts of the city.

- Project would create displacement and unobtainable housing for populations in the Mission.

  1. The parking being proposed is higher than needed and its being proposed with new zoning.
  2. We have to consider projects and their impacts cumulatively.

Sue Hestor

- Mission and Cesar Chavez Streets are the highest pedestrian fatality intersections in the city.

  1. The project should have a lot more affordable housing and a lot less parking.

Steve Vettel, Representing Project Sponsor

  1. We have a socio-economic report for this neighborhood.

- It was published last month and provides a valve to prevent new housing conversions to condominiums and prevents displacement.

  1. Current zoning requires a one-to-one parking ratio.
  2. Transit would not be affected by this project.

- There are two alleys next to the property and the intersection of Mission and Cesar Chavez Streets is not that close to them.

ACTION: Upheld Negative Declaration

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

NAYES: Olague

MOTION: 17417

10. 2005.0030C (Tape IIB; IIIA; IIIB; IVA) (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

3400 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET - north side between Mission and Bartlett Streets, and extending to 26th Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 6569 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to construct a mixed-use Planned Unit Development (PUD) of up to 60 dwelling units, approximately 16,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, with up to 97 independently accessible off-street parking spaces. This project requires Conditional Use approval for a PUD with an exception from rear yard requirements and residential density limits under Section 304 of the Planning Code, for development on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet under Sections 121.1 and 712.11, for a non-residential use size greater than 6,000 square feet under Sections 121.2 and 712.21, and for a formula retail use under Sections 703.4 and 303(i). The site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Tom Roca, San Francisco Bay Seven Hills Properties

  1. Working with the community, this process has been taken two and half years.
  2. This is a 60-unit project for working San Franciscans and first time homebuyers.
  3. Half of the units would be family housing.
  4. 15 % would be affordable and inclusionary would be built on site.

- Retail space on the ground floor includes a 24-hour Walgreens and space for two retail, service oriented businesses.

- Space is assign to Mission Education Project, Inc. with a substantial grant to continue working and educating children in the community.

  1. The project has had a lot of changes based on community input.

Dave Johnson, Architect

- The final project design is the result of a process working collaboratively with the community, project sponsor and department staff.

  1. There would be four retail spaces and its parking would be closed from 10pm to 7am.
  2. The ground floor is designed to enhance the pedestrian experience.
  3. There would be a courtyard with landscaping from RainWater Management.
  4. The landscape architect is a neighbor of this district.
  5. There would be a 64-foot mural executed by Precita's Eyes Foundation.
  6. This is a three-story building with 60 dwelling units, including two and 3-bedroom units.

Steve Vettel

  1. There is significant support for this project.

- Policy from the General Housing Element calls for the construction of new ownership units to ease existent rental housing and to prevent condominiums conversion.

- Our project could contribute to minimize housing market pressure and displacement in this neighborhood.

- It is consistent with current zoning and with the March 2007 draft zoning for the Eastern Neighborhood.

- The inclusionary percentage requirement for a project is 12 and we increased it to 15.

- We are committed to working with the Mayor's Office of Housing to try to access subsidies and possible below market-rate units.

  1. We would work with MEDA to assist with access to these units for Mission District residents.
  2. Requests were made to set aside this site for a Day Labor Center.

- In your packets is a letter from City Administrator, Ed Lee, confirming that the city has a new site on Bayshore Boulevard for a new Day Labor Center.

Nick Pagoulatos, Mission Anti-displacement Coalition

  1. This development is bringing 52 market-rate units and just 8 affordable ones.
  2. There is a critical need for affordable housing in the Mission.

- We need a long term planning program to create a mechanism to fund and target parcels most appropriate for truly 100% affordable developments.

- The Draft Area Plan for the Mission Corridor is proposed for neighborhood transit commercial requiring higher density, lower parking and is subject to super inclusionary.

- This project does not meet the need of this district. Half of the units are for single market-rate.

- The Planning Department has a pattern of recommending approval of market-rate projects with no concern of the neighborhood's need for 100 percent affordable housing developments.

- This Commission needs to address the lack of proper planning by holding up all projects for this District until the Neighborhood Plan is completed.

- We found a Community Development Partner who is willing to build 100% affordable housing at this site.

- We asked The Mayor's Office of Housing if they were willing to assist in purchasing this site and they agreed to fund this acquisition.

- With a development capacity and funding, a bonus fair market proposal was submitted to the developer.

Oscar Grande

- Displacement of working families has increased since 1990.

  1. 8,122 families were displaced by move-out owner notices from1994 to 2005.
  2. 14% of those displacements happened in the Mission.
  3. Landlords are converting rentals to condominiums, increasing market-rate units.
  4. 8 or 9 units are inclusionary and those are still high for a lot of families in the neighborhood.
  5. 3 units of 3 bedrooms offered in this project are very little.
  6. Besides affordability, there are traffic and pedestrian issues.
  7. In 2005, this intersection was rated in the top ten high spots of pedestrian danger fatalities in the city.

Renee Salcedo, La Raza Centro Legal

- We are very concerned that this market rate project may deny day labor workers the right to stand on Cesar Chavez Street.

Araceli Catalan, Member of Saint Peter's Housing

- Being a low income, widow and mother of three children; it is very difficult to live in the city - either renting or buying a home.

  1. Requested that the commission look very carefully at this project because it is not what the district needs.

Marisol Ramos

  1. I oppose this project as condominiums. It should be rental housing.
  2. We need to encourage less parking and more transit oriented neighborhoods.

Luis de Jesus, Saint Peter's Housing

- Suggested that the project should be constructed for people of medium and low income. And that space should be given for the Day Labor program.

Julio Loyola

- I believe that developments should be for the people who live in the area where they are being constructed.

Sue Hestor

- The City, Mayor's Office of Housing, was willing to buy the property and there was a developer willing to build 100-percent affordable housing at this site.

  1. This project site is what the Mission needs.
  2. This is a large site for housing and 64% of what is built should be affordable.

Rick

- There are so many Walgreens in the City already. Space should be used for more affordable housing and employment opportunities.

Jasmine Barrera, Saint Peter's Housing

- We presented our demands and needs to the Project Sponsor in November 2006 when communication started with them.

- They encouraged us to provide a plan for this development and we did not hear from them until last week.

Joe

  1. This project does not meet community needs.
  2. We need a development for the medium income population of the Mission District.

Guillermina Castellanos, Saint Peter's Housing and Women's Collective

  1. This project does not support low-income housing.
  2. Take into consideration the need of the community.

Ines Alzarte, Saint Peter's Housing and Women's Collective

  1. The project is pretty but unobtainable for families in the community.
  2. It is embarrassing to have a luxury development in a neighborhood that is so needy.

Charlie

  1. Across the street from the proposed project is the type of building to be promoted.

- 60-unit building with a variety of family size units, affordability, childcare, and an employment opportunity facility.

Karen Cliff

  1. I support this project for accessibility and because no resident would be displaced.
  2. The mix of housing and business is needed in the neighborhood.

Josh

  1. I'm in very much support of this project.
  2. It would help minimize criminal activity and bring a sense of family and community.

Toby Levine

- There is a need for homeownership in this neighborhood and this project is providing that opportunity.

- According to the 2005 census, many residents in the Mission have a College Degree with yearly incomes of $75 thousand and only 14 percent owns property.

Rita

  1. I support the project. We need it in the Mission District.
  2. Made my decision after attending meetings and listening to their presentations.

Laura Muniz

- I'm in favor of the project. It is very much needed in the Mission.

- It is about moderate-rate homeownership with retail spaces to provide more foot traffic to increase business on Cesar Chavez and in the Mission Corridor.

Larry Del Carlo, President of Mission Housing Development

  1. I support the project and appreciate the increase of affordable units from 12 to 15 percent.
  2. Encouraged the Commission to approve it.

Brenda Arriola, Carpenter, of Local 217

  1. I'm in support of this project.
  2. It is very important that our children stay in San Francisco.

John Mira, Operator of Latino Home Buyer

  1. Support the project.

- It provides senior access to Walgreens, provides local jobs and housing that is economically available for families.

Judith

- Appreciate the clarification that car ownership in the Mission is not different than elsewhere in the city and that rezoning does not exist yet.

Luisa Esquerro

  1. All kinds of housing is needed in the Mission.
  2. This project is not going to meet the needs but at least it helps to alleviate them.

Giovanny, Carpenter, Local 22

  1. Support this project.
  2. Hope it is approved to beautify the area and for our future generations.

David, Carpenter, Local 22

  1. Support this project. It would be in the right place.

Shwan Wilson

-Submitted a resolution from her committee supporting the project.

Raul Orozco, Carpenter, Local 22

- The project brings retail, public safety and growth.

  1. Requested the Commission to approve it.

John Crawley

- The Mission needs a development like this to enhance it and provide housing for the community.

  1. San Francisco needs more moderate-income housing.

Felix de Jesus

  1. I am very supportive of this project.
  2. It beautifies the neighborhood and provides housing for the community.

Deborah Howard

  1. Support this project.

- It is a positive change. It is providing housing, jobs, parking, lighting, security and even a community space.

Stuart White

- Walgreens would bring more pedestrian traffic. Nobody is going to be displaced.

Joe Martinez, Mission Childcare Consortium

  1. This is the very first developer who cares about children.
  2. We have been looking for a site for about 30 years.
  3. I urge you to approve it.

Eloise Bates

  1. I support this project and encourage you to approve it.
  2. It is providing housing for homeownership and we very much need it.
  3. It would provide property tax paying parcels.

Fidencio Salazar

  1. Support the project. It contributes a lot for the community.

Amy Sullivan

  1. Support this project.
  2. The Day Labors would have twice as much work with the traffic there.

Andrew

  1. I strongly support this project. It is a beautiful development replacing a vacant lot.
  2. A diverse neighborhood needs diverse housing.

Julie

  1. After more than a year of planning this project is going to change an empty lot. It will help families to stay in the city. We need all kinds of housing in the Mission and this project provides a mix of it. I'm requesting your support.

Rite backwell

  1. It is very important to develop housing instead of keeping empty lots.
  2. This neighborhood has been diverse and this project is encouraging it to remain that way.

Michael Terriot, Building Trades Union

  1. This project is good. It would provide employment.
  2. We support it and hope you will do as well.

David Martinez, Local 22

  1. Project would provide senior accessibility to Walgreens.
  2. Parking would benefit everybody in the neighborhood.

Vicky Descalzo

  1. Project would provide safety, housing, jobs and business services for the community.
  2. The Day Labor Program already has a new site assigned.

Jamie Ross

  1. We need vision and cohesiveness for our neighborhood improvement.
  2. Listen to the facts and make the right decision for the benefit of San Francisco.

Gloria Gladstone

  1. Support this project.

- Project Sponsor had numerous meeting with the community and incorporated feedback from it.

Anita Leyva

  1. Support this project.
  2. It would help a lot of families with children to have a place to play and be safe.

Rosa Negrete

  1. I'm in support of this project for providing a 24-hour Walgreens.
  2. It is very convenient for those occasions when my children get sick.

Bratt

  1. The empty lot has increased criminal activity.
  2. I attended community meetings and developers listened to our suggestions.

Dairo Romero

  1. Submitted a petition signed by 40 people requesting disapproval of this project.
  2. Retailers would displace small business in the area.

Gary Neton

  1. We need to find ways for families to stay in San Francisco and this project offers it.
  2. We do need parking in the Mission.
  3. Requested that the Commission support and approve it.

Marie, Lower 24th Street Association

  1. Support this project.
  2. It would provide jobs and homeownership for local families.

- There are three projects in the process for low income housing on Harrison, Florida and Bryant Streets.

Carolyn Deeby

  1. Project is amazingly attractive and well balanced.

Jay Copeland

- It is difficult to find a project responsive and reaching out to the community the way this was done.

  1. Project is a reflection of what the Mission needs and its diversity.

David

  1. I'm very supportive of this project. It provides good substantial housing and parking.

Laura Alviar

- Support this project for providing the possibility of reaching the American dream [homeownership].

  1. We are in much need of affordable housing and this project provides some of it.

Leticia Medrano

- I support this project for providing employment and homeownership at affordable prices.

Monica Limos

  1. We need more buildings. This empty lot has become very dangerous.

Jose Muniz, Local 22

  1. Support this project.
  2. It has guaranteed employment for union laborers and meets planning requirements.
  3. The Day Labor Program has a site assigned already.

Michael Millar-Quintana

  1. Seven Hills has worked very closely and cooperatively with the community.
  2. The empty lot has contributed to the increase in criminal activities.

Guadalupe Arreola

  1. We gathered over 60 signatures opposing this project.
  2. One question that has not been answered is the cost of these units.

Karla Fernandez, Local 22

  1. Support this project. I am very interested that it be approved.
  2. It would provide employment opportunity, housing and pharmacy services.

Jim Salinas Sr., Local 22

- I come to the Commission meetings every week because our union members work very hard in building the city.

  1. This project represents employment and housing opportunities.

Juan, Local 22

  1. Support this project because it would benefit my neighborhood.
  2. It would give me an opportunity for homeownership.

Juan Pablo Contreras, Local 22

  1. Support this project for providing employment and housing opportunities.
  2. It would help this multicultural community.

ACTION: Approved as amended

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

NAYES: Olague and Sugaya

MOTION # 17418

11. 2005.0302U (Tape VA) (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1735 FRANKLIN STREET - the Brandenstein (Bransten) House, west side between California and Sacramento Streets, in Assessor's Block 0641, Lot 002 - Consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a Mills Act historical property contract for 1735 Franklin Street, the Brandenstein House, which is San Francisco Landmark No. 126 and listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. The Mills Act authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with owners of private historical property who, through the historical property contract, assure the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation and maintenance of a qualified historical property. In return, the property owner enjoys a reduction in property taxes for a given period. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Alice Keri, Project Architect

- Ordinance adopted in 1996

  1. Project has been in the process for two years.
  2. Mills Act reinforces San Francisco's commitment of promoting historic ambiance resources.
  3. Project sponsor has agreed to maintain exterior and interior of the property.
  4. City and State could come to inspect property on an annual basis.
  5. It enhances the quality of life in San Francisco.

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17419

12. 2007.0182T (Tape VA) (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

Consideration of an Ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number 070213] which would amend Planning Code Sections 204, 204.1, 204.2, 204.3, 243.1, 703.2 and 986 to exclude microcell installation equipment from the definition of accessory use, establishing its effective date retroactive to February 13, 2007, and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the proposed Ordinance with Modifications

SPEAKERS

Paul Albritton, T-Mobile Representative

  1. We oppose this legislation.

- Support recommendations made by the Commission on February 8th for administrative review of the accessory use process.

- If you must support this legislation, we suggest that the application of it to solely residential use buildings be excluded from the conditional use process.

Mathew Yergovich

  1. Supports the carriers and oppose the amendments to exclude microcell permitting.

- Microcells were installed at the City's request to provide cellular service with the smallest facilities and lowest radio frequency possible.

- It would create barriers and increase the need for complete sites to reach the empty gaps.

David Tornheim, Sunset Neighborhood Antenna Free Association

  1. Submitted a copy of a letter faxed to the Commission.

- We support this legislation that would notify residents about installation of these antennas.

Doug Liranler, Sunset Neighborhood Antenna Free

  1. We support this legislation for public process and notification.

ACTION: Approved recommending that the Board of Supervisor look at noticing through the 311 or 312 process in lieu of what is proposed.

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

NAYES: Olague

RESOLUTION: 17420

13. 2006.1340D (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

2219 BRYANT STREET - east side between 20th and 21st Streets, Assessor's Block 4087, Lot 037 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.25.9790, proposing a vertical addition to an existing two-story single-family dwelling, adding one dwelling unit and one additional off-street parking space, located in a RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 10, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

14a. 2004.0072D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2632 CABRILLO STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.24.7792, proposing to demolish an existing two-story, single-family dwelling 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 demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 17, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

14b. 2004.0073D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2632 CABRILLO STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.24.7794, proposing to construct a new three-story, two-unit 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 as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 17, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

15. 2007.0109D (Tape VA; VB) (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

1944 OCEAN AVENUE - north side at the northeast corner of the intersection with Fairfield Way; Lot 020C in Assessor's Block 3281 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.12.29.0768, to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a. Alternative Relief Coop). This parcel is located within the Ocean Avenue Fast Food sub-district, within the NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial), District, and the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Marc Walpa, Project Sponsor

  1. We have been providing services to low and no income people for 4 years.
  2. Smoking on site is not allowed.

- We have two full time security guards and a metal detector at the main entrance.

  1. Facility is calm, comfortable, clean and well lighted.
  2. Marina Childcare and school across the street have no specific problems with us.
  3. We allow patients two visits per day and keep a log to monitor usage limits.
  4. Services are provided with doctor's verification.

Mary C. Harris, President of All My Neighbors in Action

  1. Seniors in the neighborhood are very concerned about this dispensary.
  2. There is a senior center adjacent to it complaining about marijuana smells every day.
  3. Medicinal marijuana should be distributed in a safe manner or it will attract crime.
  4. Submitted a petition from seniors unable to attend today.

Dan Weaver

  1. I want to share photos of attractive dispensaries enhancing the neighborhood.
  2. The proposed dispensary is not attractive with bars, lot of cameras, bulletproof glass.
  3. Existent retail character should be preserved and enhanced throughout the neighborhood.

Larren Franklin

  1. Requested support of the dispensary to provide medication for the community.

Christopher

  1. I have been a dispensary patient for 10 years and have visited this site for the last 2 years.
  2. It is well lighted, clean and safe.

Don Tomas

  1. I have been a cannabis patient for 11 years.
  2. This site is safe, clean and I appreciate the security guards.

Michael Pauly

  1. I am a patient of this alternative medicine site for convenience. It is within walking distance.
  2. The liquor store up the street creates more disturbances than the dispensary.

Rebecca Clever

  1. I have been a patient of the dispensary for one year because it is the closest to where I live.
  2. It provides social and emotional support.
  3. Closing would create a hardship to its patients.

[Inaudible]

  1. Site is extremely safe and comfortable.
  2. I live next door and depend on this club.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

NAYES: Alexander and Antonini

16a. 2006.0388D (Tape VB) (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

365 Douglass Street - east side between 19th and 20th Streets. Block 2699, Lot 31 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, under Demolition Permit Application number 2006.02.03.3728. The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling. The subject property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Units) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jerry Veverka, Project Architect

  1. We broke down the scale of the building to fit the comfort of the neighborhood.

- The owner of the house, neighbors and staff like the project and we hope the Commission will do so as well.

Minna King, Owner

  1. Our intent is to make this house our home for many years to come.
  2. It has been challenging for us because of the lack of space.
  3. All neighbors have been and continue to support our project.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

16b. 2006.0389D (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

365 Douglass Street - east side between 19th and 20th Streets, Block 2599, Lot 031 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction, under Building Permit Application number 2006.02.033732, in conjunction with the demolition of a single family dwelling under case 2006.0388D with Demolition Permit Application number 2006.02.03.3728. The proposal is to construct a new, three-story single-family dwelling. The subject property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Units) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

NOTE: On 11/30/06, following public testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission continued this matter to 2/1/07 with instructions to the project sponsor to consider a new design and neighborhood character. The public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 16a

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

17. 2006.1396D (A. STARR; (415) 558-6362)

146 Funston Avenue - east side, between Lake and California Streets, Lot 034 in Assessor's Block 1372 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.02.3904 proposing to merge two dwelling units into one in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 24, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

18. 2004.0773E (Tape IVA) (L. KIENKER: (415) 558-5970, 575-9036 after 4/19/07)

55 Laguna Mixed Use Project - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report -The project site is located at 55 Laguna Street in the Hayes Valley neighborhood of San Francisco on the two city blocks bounded by Haight Street to the north, Laguna Street to the east, Hermann Street to the south, and Buchanan Street to the west. The proposed project would include new construction as well as renovation of most of the vacant buildings on the former University of California Berkeley Extension Campus to provide residential, community facility, retail space, open space and parking. The project site currently contains four buildings that were formerly occupied by educational uses, including Woods Hall, Woods Hall Annex, Richardson Hall and Middle Hall. The project site also contains the UCSF dental clinic that is currently in use. The project would renovate Woods Hall, Woods Hall Annex, and most of Richardson Hall to be used for residential and community facility space. Middle Hall would be demolished, as would the Richardson Hall Administration wing, a small single-story portion of Richardson Hall located at the north end of the building. New infill construction would include the development of seven new residential buildings ranging in height between three and eight stories. The tallest building, at a maximum height of 85 feet, would be built by an organization called open-house, specifically for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender seniors (hereinafter referred to as the open-house building). The proposed project would accommodate up to 450 residential units including approximately 85 units in the open-house building, approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of community facility space, and up to 5,000 occupied sq. ft. of retail space. The project would provide a variety of open spaces, including a privately owned, publicly accessible park, which would be located along the Waller Street alignment. The project would provide approximately 352 on-site parking spaces, including 51 spaces for the dental clinic and up to 10 spaces for a car share organization primarily within four below ground garages, and a small amount of above-ground parking. The project would require a change in the zoning district from P (Public) to RTO (Residential-Transit Oriented) and NCT-3 (Neighborhood Commercial Transit Moderate Scale Mixed-Use), new zoning classifications proposed for Market and Octavia Area Plan, or a mixed-used Special Use District. The dental clinic would remain in a P zoning district. The project would also require an adjustment in the height and bulk designations of the site from 40 X and 80-B to 40-X, 50-X and 85-X. The proposed project would also require an amendment to the San Francisco General Plan to allow the change from a public/institutional use designation to residential mixed-use designations, and to allow an increase in building heights.

Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday April 24, 2007, at our new offices: 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, SF, CA 94103; new fax: (415) 558-6409. Our MEA offices will be closed Friday April 20 and Monday April 23. Comments received or postmarked by April 24, 2007 will be accepted.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007)

SPEAKERS

C. White

  1. We support housing but not at the expense of loosing a jewel in the city.

- This review is inadequate for not including the impact on traffic, displacement of 1900 residents and sunlight obstruction.

  1. Request that you not approve this review, but rather, conduct another one.

Cynthia Servetnic, President of Save UC Berkeley Extension

- This review is the only process we have had to express ourselves concerning new zoning and guidelines.

  1. Suggested having a citizen advisory committee to evaluate those changes.
  2. The Market and Octavia Plan did not include studies for this particular site.

Francisco Herrera, Assistant Director of New College

  1. Do not rezone this area.
  2. There is youth violence throughout the city and educational facilities are a resource to help minimize it.
  3. Suggested having a citizen advisory committee for mediation.
  4. UC is willing to pay market-rate in order to keep the building.

Martin Hamilton, President of New College

  1. There should be an open public process for adjacent neighborhoods.
  2. Suggested mediating conditions for citizen advisory committee.

Lena Tsakmaki

  1. It would be a shame to replace this educational facility and construct condominiums.
  2. Public use buildings are hard to replace.

Lavon Taback

  1. There is a need for a citizen advisory committee on this process.
  2. Submitted signed petition by residents in the neighborhood supporting it.
  3. Requested the commission to appoint it [advisory committee] to come up with alternatives.

Adam Millard-Ball

  1. Transit, open space and affordability are old issues not being addressed yet.

- Reduce parking and increase open space.

Robin F. Levitt

  1. Hayes Street transit is currently backed up.
  2. Consider increasing open space and reduce parking when approving the review.

Paul Olsen, President of Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

  1. The Association submitted a letter to the Commission with our comments and concerns.

- There was no specific impact review for this site included in the Market and Octavia Plan.

  1. They should be put together being within the boundaries of this plan.
  2. There is a need to consider open space and the impact on transit.

Richard Johnson

  1. The review needs to address air quality because of car pollution in the city.
  2. A few areas in the city have public space -- this is one of them.

Ruthy Bennett

  1. We believe the review is adequate and right.
  2. I am proud of work done with the community. Public comments are being heard.

Elaine Adamson

  1. I'm in support of the review.
  2. We need more accessible housing. I look forward to this inter-generation project.
  3. 55 Laguna would increase the population of middle-income renters.

Jane Cee

  1. I greatly support this project because this site has been vacant for many years.
  2. The Community Center would keep the intention of historic structure.

Tamara Colby, Co-Chair of Save UC Berkely Extension

  1. Submitted 17 comments from neighbors unable to attend.
  2. The project may eliminate eligibility for historic registration of this site.
  3. Questioned whether reviews for Market-Octavia Plan and this one were done properly.
  4. Building has the history of learning and tolerance in the community.

ACTION: Public hearing on the draft EIR only. No action needed of the Commission at this time.

E. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

19. Commission Comments/Questions None

  • 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.

F. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

20. Director's Announcements None

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

None

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

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

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 11:42 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 31, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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 10:00:26 PM