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

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

August 9, 2007

August 9, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 9, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:42 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Anmarie Rodgers, Adam Light, Joshua Switzky, Sarah Jones, Craig Nikitas, Aaron Starr, Kate Conner, Ben Fu, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Elizabeth Watty, Michelle Glueckert, Elaine Forbes, Michael Jacinto, Ken Rich, 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. 2007.0101U (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6816)

45 LANSING STREET (BLOCK 3749, LOT 059) - Motion to Waive Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fees per Section 318.3(f) - The Planning Commission approved a project at 45 Lansing Street on March 15, 2007, that includes approximately 227 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupiable square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project would require a payment of approximately $3,000,000. The project sponsor has entered into a Waiver Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to secure the formation of a Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) District and to take all necessary steps to support the construction of a portion of the public improvements, equal to the value owed by the sponsor, and described in Planning Code Section 318.6 and in the Rincon Hill Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to September 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

2. 2007.0688T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

POLK STREET: BOARD FILE 070851 - Ordinance Amending Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 723 as related to the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District [Board File No. 07-0851]. Ordinance amending sections of the San Francisco Planning Codes by amending Section 121.2 to move Polk Street from a 3,000 square foot use size limit to a 2,000 square foot use size limit and by amending Section 723 to provide that commercial and institutional uses in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District are permitted up to 1,999 square feet and allowed as a conditional use for 2,000 square feet and above; adopting findings, inclusion Section 302 findings, environmental findings and findings of consistency with Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

3. 2007.0515T (A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6396)

FRINGE FINANCIAL: BOARD FILE 070671 - Forwarding a proposed ordinance with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 249.5, 781.8, 781.9, 782, and 783 and adding Section 249.35 to the San Francisco Planning Code to create a noncontiguous Fringe Financial Service Restricted Use District prohibiting new fringe financial services, as defined, with certain exceptions; amending San Francisco Planning Code Section 312 to require certain notice in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, amending San Francisco Planning Code Section 227 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Commercial District Zoning Control Table; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 702.4 and 710 through 730 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Neighborhood Commercial District Zoning Control Tables; adding Section 790.111 and 890.113 to the San Francisco Planning Code to define a Fringe Financial Service Use; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 790.110, 790.112, 890.110, and 890.112 to require that use applications for Financial Services and Limited Financial Services include a copy of any state-issued license; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 803.2, 810, 811, and 812 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Chinatown Zoning Control Tables; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 814 through 818 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to certain Zoning Control Tables in the South of Market area; amending San Francisco Planning Code Section 827 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use District Zoning Control Table; amending Sections 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, and 914 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to certain Mission Bay Zoning Control Tables; amending Sectional Maps Numbers 1SU, 2SU, 6SU, 7SU, 8SU, and 10SU of Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to indicate the boundaries of the Fringe Financial Service Restricted Use District, and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. to provide comments to the Planning Department, making environmental findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to September 20, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

4. 2007.0517T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

OFF-SHELF LIQUOR: GROCERY STORES - Amendments relating to Planning Code Sections 790.55, 249.5, 781.8, 781.9, and 783 [Board File No. 07-0617]. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier amending Planning Code Sections 790.55, 249.5, 781.8, 781.9, and 783 to remove grocery stores and other similar uses from prohibitions placed on the establishment of liquor stores in certain districts; and making environmental findings and findings of consistence with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 20, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

5. 2007.0511T (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN: HEALTH PLANNER: BOARD FILE 070678 - Forwarding a proposed ordinance with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors amending the Planning Code (Section 304.5) to require a qualified health planner retained by the Department of Public Health to analyze the relationship to citywide health care needs of medical institutions' institutional master plans, revisions, and conditional use applications, to provide comments to the Planning Department, making environmental findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to September 20, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

6. 2007.0136C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

3953 24TH STREET - south side between Sanchez and Noe Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 6508 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 728.94, 161(j), and 303(e), to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization in order to allow six senior dwelling-units to be converted into five market-rate dwelling-units with no off-street parking. This site is located within the 24th Street - Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July12, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 27, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

7. 2007.0212D (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

1430 DIAMOND STREET - west side between 27th Street and Duncan Street; Lot 004C in Assessor's Block 6588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.11.4737, proposing construction of a 12-foot horizontal rear addition and a vertical addition to an existing two-story single family residence in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 19, 2007)

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

8. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 26, 2007.

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 26, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

9. Commission Comments/Questions

· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

- I reviewed the Actions of the Commission from last week when I was away and I just want to comment on the design on a couple of them that I thought were outstanding.

- The renderings for the 21 Wood project was extremely well done and really presented how that project would look addressing the street face.

- I think everything was really well done on that and I also liked the design.

- I guess that most everyone saw the reports in the newspaper, I was out of town and not able to see the presentation on the three possible designs for the Transit Tower.

- I thought they were very impressive and hope that we are able to have that actually happen.

- I think that improving the business climate in San Francisco, having occupants and people interested in occupying those towers in going to be the key to make it actually happen.

- I think that is one of the key issues as well as continuing to improve on the quality of life in San Francisco for residents who continue to want to live here. I think this could be a big boost for the City.

- Finally, we did get a report on our Commission Action List and I just want to mention that there are two or three that I had requested.

- Some of them say what the responses are and some have no response on the list. I just want to mention the ones that I do not see any response on.

- The first was a report on projects in the Mission District I requested information on revenue taxes from those projects because much of what we are going to be looking at in terms of the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan is the impacts that these projects have.

- Certainly one of the impacts is the generation buildings that come from a building where an empty lot used to be and I think that should be part of what we look at when we look at impacts.

- If it is not there, we should at least see something or see projects that already have been approved and what sort of revenue generation they are producing.

- Even thought that is not the only issue, it is certainly an impact and it should be evaluated.

- Secondly, we talked a little bit about some property on 27th Avenue and just generally the situation with the historical situation throughout the City because things are being approached in a different manner then they were a few years ago in terms of evaluating the historical nature of projects.

- When a survey needs to be done what are the responsibilities of the project sponsor. This is an issue that probably is being addressed.

- Finally, the one about specifics on the amount of vetting and discussion of an impact study on the affordable project -- the West Plaza on 7th Street -- did not seem consistent with the amount of vetting we are seeing on some market rate projects.

- We are trying to see what the difference is. Those are my issues for the future.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- Under Director's Report, I have three items and one of them addresses an item that you did not mention. Just so you are aware, we are going through the Action List and responding.

- On the affordable versus springing fees, we have a draft that we are reviewing and you should have something early next week on that one. The others, we are working on responding to them.

- In some cases, we are having difficult time figuring out exactly where we are going to get the information but we will talk to you off line on that.

Commissioner Moore

- I just want to briefly comment on the competition presentation. It was a really exciting evening full of energy.

- I hope that the Commission would have the ability to see a tape. I am not sure as to whether or not they scheduled evenings where it would be re-broadcast. I strongly recommend all Commissioners to see this.

- What really struck me is that there was a wide variety of responses. Some of them were really exciting and some of them addressed our concerns also.

- Meeting 15 percent of affordability on housing, which is not high, in projects like this is something that normally is not being offered by the way that it was taken.

- This is really sensitivity to a wide array of issues. Some of them were really quite remarkable.

- I think we all could learn from that presentation again.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I believe that public access channel is carrying the tape of that hearing. I do not know what the schedules are, but I was able to catch it on Tuesday evening.

- One of the things that struck me with respect to the project itself is the need now for the Planning Department to move forward on what we are going to be hearing later today.

- It seems like the projects are obviously addressing the needs for the Transit Towers in the transit center itself but I think that there are other issues that relate to the public ramp outside of the immediate transit center area.

- Specially, what the relationships are between there and Market Street and the BART system.

Commissioner Olague

- I just want to directly request a hearing date for the Academy of Art Colleges. I believe that staff might have some information on that.

- The latest news that I read was that they were purchasing or considering purchasing some property around the Flower Mart area.

- It seems that they are purchasing a lot of properties. I am not sure, but I don't think that we have heard any report from them in years.

- The Academy of Art College is an art institution like the Lorain Hansberry Theater. But it is a fact that they are buying the theater site that has been there for 30 years.

- It does not seem that there is any accountability. We just do not have a sense of who they are, at some level.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- We had prepared a report that we intended to give you today on their status but they came in on Tuesday for a meeting with us that we had been seeking.

- I want to assure you that Scott Sanchez of the Enforcement Division and I have been working with them for some time and finally over the last month have getting some response from them.

- We think that they are going to be filing some permits either tomorrow or Monday and we are committed to give a report by the middle of next week.

- We just want to respond with the latest information. I understand your concerns and we share your concerns. We are not sitting on this.

- I read their proposal to purchase portions of the Flower Mart with great interest but we are getting some movement from them and we want to give a report and then schedule a status report, probably in the middle of September.

Commissioner Olague

- It was brought to my attention a couple of times but I have not actually read anything specific about them actually converting certain housing units to dorms - that sort of thing.

- What really raised the red flag for me was the thought of an Art College evicting an art institution in the City -- and not so much with the Flower Mart.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- We share those concerns and I just want to assure you that I know you requested a hearing and we are not ignoring your request and we have diligent staff to work with them.

- It does seem that finally within the last month and a half they engaged a competent attorney who is familiar with land use issues and it seems that they have the desire to try to respond to our concerns.

- Initially, it became very clear that they were unable to understand our concerns and the Planning Code. It took a long time to hear us that they needed to be adequately represented.

- They are now adequately represented and the attorney is trying to sort through a very complicated process. But there has been progress.

- What I want to avoid is bringing you something where we have only questions and no answers.

Commissioner Olague

- Maybe we can have that hearing on the 20th of September and see what we have.

- I believe that even on the web site they have some properties listed as dorm sites for potential students.

Commissioner W. Lee

- To follow up with Commissioner Olague, I would like someone from the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) be included in that hearing because my understanding is that they have numerous building code violations in their dorms/buildings and there are ADA concerns.

- It is important that instead of us asking them questions we might as well have DBI here to clarify if it is a dorm or an apartment; what the violations are; and how that impacts the Institutional Master Plan.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)

10. Director's Announcements

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- We have three responses to Action List items that we will pass out later. They would have been in your Commission packets for next week but I realized that there were no packets for next week.

- The first one is in response to Commissioner Bill Lee about the  Quickly' stores. The second is in response to Commissioner Antonini's question on the upper market charrette and the process for that. And the third is a response to Commissioner Olague's question on 10th and Market.

- I will pass them out today and if you have further questions, concerns or wish follow up; we will be happy to do that.

- I was not prepared unless the Commission wants public discussion on any of these items at this time but I will be happy to do that.

Commissioner Antonini

- I do not know that we have to necessarily do it today but I think we would like to have it as part of the Director's report the next time we meet.

- I think it is important that the questions be answered publicly too.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- The other ones we can calendar for discussion for next week. Briefly about  Quickly' because many people have asked about this:

- There are twelve  Quickly' restaurants in San Francisco, established essentially over the last five years.

- Two of the twelve were in compliance because they opened prior to the formula retail provisions and they are existing non-confirming conditional uses or what we called automatic conditions.

- Most of the other applications did not actually receive any building permits. They came in for health permits and did not file for building permits to do any changes that they had wanted to do.

- Commissioner Lee specifically asked questions that we are unable to respond to. Who were the contractors? Who were the permit expeditors or helpers involved?

- We have no building permits so we can not tell how that work was done.

- Five of twelve  Quickly' restaurants did not identify themselves as  Quickly' on the health permit. Five did but misidentified themselves as to what kind of use they are.

- As you are aware, we have small self-service, large fast food, full service and small fast food restaurants. They were either not identified correctly or misidentified.

- Most of these  Quickly' restaurants are either considered small self service or small fast food. Depending on the district, they may either not be permitted or they would require a conditional use to legalize.

- Eight notices of violations have been issued. Five of those have been appealed to the Board of Appeals. Four of those five cases have been heard. Three have been upheld and the other was continued to a date in October. One appeal has a pending hearing date.

- The Department believes the difficulty of flagging these initially is because of the lack of proper building permits, a couple of incorrect identities by the project sponsors on the type of restaurant, and a failure of the project sponsor to identify them as formula retail.

- We are pursuing this. They have gone to the Board of Appeals.

- In some of these cases, the Board says that they do need a CU and we expect them to come to you.

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

Anmarie Rodgers reported of Board of Supervisor's events:

Land Use Committee:

- Public Review of Wireless Telecommunication facilities. This would amend Sections 311 and 312 to apply the public review process to these facilities. It would affect building permit applications in R and NC districts and wireless telecommunications facilities currently permitted as accessory uses under Article 2 of the Planning Code.

Full Board:

A- Historical property contract also as known as Mills Act for 1735 Franklin Street. The Landmark Advisory and Preservation Board recommended approval in February of this year. Adopted

B- Appeals:

a) 601 Duboce for CU and Neg. Dec. Continued to September 18th

b) 4041 Geary Boulevard - CU – adding a Starbucks to a previously approved Toyota Service Center. Continued to September 11th

City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee:

A- Extension for the Medical Dispensary Permits. It would amend the Health and Planning Code extending the timeline that MCDs have to obtain the final permits. Changes recommended by the Planning Commission were incorporated into the proposed ordinance and are being heard at this time.

Introductions:

A) Supervisor McGoldrick introduced an ordinance that would amend the Planning Code to extend the inclusionary housing requirements from 5 units down to 3 units. For buildings with 3 to 4 units, these projects would pay a reduced 10-percent fee instead of the current 20-percent fee that is required if you are doing the in-lieu fee option.

B) Supervisor Peskin introduced an ordinance titled  West Side Off-Street Parking Provision and South of Market Parking Overlay District It would amend the Planning Code requiring 1 to 1 parking on the West side of the City and it would also create a special use district parking overlay in the South of Market area.

C) Planning Department introduced legislation that would amend the designation of a property at 225-227 Front Street from Category V or unrated building to Category IV or contributory building under Article 11.

D) Supervisor Mirkarimi introduced various documents that would implement the Market-Octavia Plan. It would go to the Land Use and Budget and Finance Committee before being heard by the Full Board.

Board of Appeals

None

12. (Tape IA) (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

125 Mason Street and 149 MasonStreet - west side between Eddy and Ellis Streets, Assessor's Block 331, Lot Nos. 18 and 17. The subject properties are within the C-3-G/130-F Zoning Districts. Informational Presentation on the public art proposal for two affordable housing projects, both of which were approved by the Commission on August 10, 2006. The 125 Mason St. project consists of 81affordable family housing rental units and 13 parking spaces, provides the affordable housing required pursuant to Section 315 of the Planning Code for the 301 Mission development project. The 149 Mason St. project consists of 56 affordable studio housing rental units. Glide Economic Development Corp. is a development sponsor of both projects.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: No Action required of the Commission. Informational Only.

13. 2007.0529I (Tape IA) (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX – INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN - Zoning Administrator announcement of the receipt of the University of Phoenix Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The University of Phoenix proposes to relocate its campus from a 0.38 acre site at 185 Berry Street, located in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, to a 0.32 acre site at 1 Front Street, located in the C-3-0 (Downtown Office) District, and to increase its enrollment by 50 students to 350 students. The Planning Commission has the discretion under Planning Code Section 304.5(d), to hold or not hold a public hearing on an Abbreviated IMP for institutions less than 1 acre in size. If the Commission requests a hearing, it would be scheduled for a later date. The University of Phoenix's Abbreviated IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department's website.

Preliminary Recommendation: Commission not hold a public hearing

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 2, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: The Commission decided not to hold a public hearing.

14. (Tape IA; IB) (J. SWITZKY 575-6815/E. FORBES 558-6417/S. JONES 575-9034)

TRANSIT CENTER DISTRICT PLAN PLANNING PROCESS - Informational presentation on the Transit Center District Plan, including process, schedule, contracting, and budget for both planning and environmental review work. This planning effort is examining potential changes to land use, urban form, public realm, and public benefits for the area around the Transbay Transit Center.

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

- It has been interesting reading the letters to the editors on the papers about the evaluation of Rincon Tower.

- Little do they know that there is a second tower because no one says anything about it.

- I am really hoping that the modeling capacity of the Department becomes such that you can see how things are viewed throughout the city.

- A lot of the people that are shocked are shocked because they are way far south or west and they had no idea this was coming.

- The second thing is that I am hoping that the analysis in the Environmental Impact Report would include serious building analysis of the sheer walls un-attached because the seismic capacity of these buildings is tight to a certain point on the stresses.

- If these things release and the glass curtain walls come off, the façade comes off. You can have tons of feet of debris at the bottom of buildings.

- As we shift to a housing model, they should show these very high towers with these glass curtains. I have not seen any of that discussed in any analysis on any high raise projects in environmental review.

- Please do an analysis that tells what happens during a seismic event that will happen over the life of the building.

- We are putting a lot of people and housing in a lot of towers. This is really serious stuff.

Gary Noguera

- In the discussions about the modeling, I thought what you may also want to consider besides shadowing, is the addition of light.

- If the buildings are made with a reflective glass, that will add a different element. There are times that light shines in your face where you can not really see anymore.

- I like reflective glass but I think that if you are developing a model throw that element in as well.

- Secondly, Ms. Hestor raised a point about the overall impact of a tower. I like tall buildings but the view from twin-peaks, the One Rincon building has really interfered with the view of the Bay Bridge.

ACTION: No Action required of the Commission. Informational only.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES (Tape IB)

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

Sue Hestor

- In the past week, I have identified a massive noticing problem in the Planning Code.

- It came up with regards to the Ralph K. Davies project.

- When the project was here before the Commission, my client kept telling me that people had not gotten notice and I just discounted it.

- When the time came to file the appeal to the Board of Supervisors and the notices went out for that, I found out that they were actually right.

- What we use for conditional use notices is the property owner's list. You have a neighborhood that have a lot of tenancies in common and they do not get notice. That is the description of Duboce Triangle.

- Between 20-25 percent of the people in that neighborhood would never be notified of any hearing on a conditional use.

- The staff involved in this project is informed of this because I sent him emails on it.

- Your CU notices right now are defective.

- I am going to go to the Board and ask them to change the law and I would hope that your Department would pay attention to CUs in the interim. You can remedy the process.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

Item 15 was taken off consent

15. 2007.0444C (Tape IA; IB) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1033-1037 IRVING STREET - south side between 11th and 12th Avenues; Lot 046, in Assessor's Block 1766 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 730.42 to allow the establishment of a full-service restaurant (name to be determined) in a vacant commercial space most recently occupied as office space. The site is within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Anita Chu, Owner's Representative

- We are just looking for the support of the Commissioners to open this local small family business.

Joyce Cheng, Project Sponsor

- This is on the ground floor of the existing vacant space that used to be an office.

- We tried to raise the ceiling height and we also want to meet the handicap requirements.

- This is a very beautiful building and we are trying to raise the ceiling by 2 feet, 6 inches and add a new door and window to be a neighbor building.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

-Project Sponsor shall continue to work with staff on design with particular attention to glass and moldings and if feasible, to flip the restaurant entry door away from the residential side.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17473

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

16. 2007.0386C (Tape IB; IIA) (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

3901 NORIEGA STREET - south side at the southwestern corner of the intersection with 46th Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2083 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 710.24, 710.27, and 710.48 of the Planning Code to allow a full-service restaurant (d.b.a Pizza Place) with outdoor activity, extended hours of operation, and other entertainment within the NC-1 (Cluster, Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor's Representative

- The Project Sponsor mentioned that in her neighborhood there are few places to go and there is very little to do.

- She and her fiancé, who is a chef, set out to open a business in their neighborhood that would suit her and meet the need that they perceived.

- The location is at the intersection of a very wide portion of Noriega Street.

- Across the street, there are non-traffic [generating] commercial spaces in the NC district. There is a Real Estate office.

- Directly across the street is the other restaurant on the block. It is a Korean restaurant that stays open until 2a.m. It is small and quite.

- The backyard on the 46th Avenue side is a great location to make use of outdoor eating.

- There is no similar entertainment site in the district. The neighborhood lacks family appropriate gathering venues on size and character.

- It has a lot of light and space with a maximum capacity of 49. It is a very roomy area.

- Their skill and services are appropriate for the location. Only beer and wine will be served. Alcohol is not anticipated for this location.

- Should the opportunity present itself, they would like to be able to make the facility available for parties and family events. It would require the designation of an entertainment permit.

- This business contributes to the neighborhood and does not substantially change the character of this quite area.

Angelita Rodelas

- Many neighbors called me and asked me to speak today and raise our concerns regarding this business since they were unable to attend.

- The main concern is the noise that this would generate at night. There are elderly, handicap people, and children in this area.

- Although there are commercial establishments along three portions of the Noriega, the Avenues are considered residential areas. It is quite there.

- This would add parking problems in the area. Also, the extended hours and the entertainment use would bring problems.

- The place would attract undesirable customers and problems would start there with the outdoor tables and chairs.

Teresita Villanueva

- Everything that I wanted to say was told already.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Staff to review access to rear outdoor eating area.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17474

17a. 2007.0388CV (Tape IIA) (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2574 San Bruno Avenue - west side, between Felton and Burrows Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 5981 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for use size under Planning Code Sections 711.21 and 121.2 to demolish the existing community recreation center,  Boys Club, and construct a two-story over basement community health center, operated by the North East Medical Services, within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project also includes a Variance request for an exception to off-street parking requirements pursuant to Planning Code Section 151.

Preliminary Recommendation: approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Linda Bien, President of North East Medical Services - Project Sponsor

- It is our intention to build a community health center at this site and I would like to focus on three points: who we are, what programs we are proposing to offer and our request as it relates to funding for this construction.

- NEMS [North East Medical Services] is a private non-profit community health center providing services to the residents of San Francisco for over 35 years. It has served 75 thousand patients with over one million patient visits.

- Its mission is to serve the medically underserved and uninsured by providing high quality, cultural sensitive and linguistic competent health care services.

- NEMS philosophy is that by keeping our patients healthy with preventive and primary care services they can continue to be productive contributing citizens at work and school.

- NEMS receives funding from federal and state programs like Medical, Medicare, Healthy Families, federal support for uninsured, foundations, and other charitable entities.

- NEMS currently has three clinics in San Francisco -- in Chinatown, Visitacion Valley and in the Sunset. And we are building one on San Bruno Avenue. The current space is too small to meet the demands.

- We started the process by talking to the community. We are very pleased to say that we have a wonderful community wide interest, input and support from the neighboring schools, non-profit agencies, residents, merchants and neighborhood committee.

- Supervisor Maxwell, our District Supervisor is delighted with the addition of this basic and vital service into this community.

- The location on San Bruno Avenue is perfect for our patients. Most of them take public transportation.

- If we had to provide the required parking subject of this variance, it would be financially prohibiting and it would not serve our patients.

- On the issue of the set back variance, we would loose 36 percent or 9 exam rooms if the variance is not granted.

- As far as operating hours are concerned, we generally work on regular office hours and will not propose an undue hardship to the residents in the area.

- We have strong financial support that may go away if we do not use it soon. Our concern is that the City does not loose the opportunity to build a clinic.

- We have many letters of support.

Mr. Wong – [Linda Bien translated and read Mr. Wong's statement]

- I have been a NEMS patient for over 15 years and live near Silver Avenue. I am currently seeing Dr. Lu in Chinatown.

- It would be a great convenience to have a health center like NEMS with staff that can speak my language and it would be even better to offer more services in one place.

Matthew Cai and Mai King Woy

- We live in the Potrero district but go to NEMS in Chinatown.

- I urge you to approve NEMS-San Bruno Avenue project for a larger clinic close to my home.

Kendal Young, Architect for the Project

- I am the architect of this project and if you have any questions or comments please ask me.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17475

17b. 2007.0388CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2574 San Bruno Avenue - west side, between Felton and Burrows Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 5981 - Variance Request for off-street parking pursuant to Planning Code Section 151 for the proposed two-story over basement community health center, operated by the North East Medical Services, within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for 17a

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

18. 2007.0164D (Tape IIA; IIB) (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

40 JUANITA WAY - south side between Fowler Avenue and Teresita Boulevard; Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 2901B - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 20056.12.20.0206, construct a third level addition, onto a one-story over garage, single-family structure. The addition would include a rear deck and stairs at the second and third levels, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)

NOTE: On June 21, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission continued this item to August 9, 2007 to allow the sponsors to consider re-designing or design options. The public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS

John O'Sullivan, Discretionary Review Requestor

- We have asked for discretionary review for a number of reasons.

- The proposed addition would cause us to loose considerable light and air into our homes. It would also set a dangerous precedent in Miraloma Park.

- There are three third floor additions on our block, including our own, that are less than 500 square feet starting from the existing rear wall and set back from the center patio with no decks and staircases.

- This issue is important to the Miraloma Park residents. Of the 70 residents we spoke with regarding this issue, 68 signed a petition asking to limit the addition to 500 square feet and eliminate the exterior deck and staircase. We ask that you take their appeal into consideration.

- There is also a legal basis for our discretionary review because the Miraloma Park Residential Guidelines adopted by this Commission in 1999 are being violated.

- The distance between a vertical expansion and sky lights or other roof openings in surrounding homes should be sufficient to prevent shadows on these openings.

- I ask you to look at the applicant's shadow drawings -- and they are incomplete because none of them show any of the months after 3 o'clock in the afternoon -- you would see the shadow impacts.

- Covering over our center patio would be out of character with our neighborhood and the Design Guidelines and it would set a dangerous precedence.

- This proposed addition would convert a 2 bedroom/one bath home to a six bedroom/four bath home. This is a gigantic addition for an attached home in our neighborhood and definitely out of character.

Kevin O'Sullivan

- The proposed third floor addition sets a dangerous precedence for space and privacy of attached homes in our neighborhood.

- The Miraloma Park Residential Guidelines on page 30 states: the green belt constituted by the open air joining rear yards is a mayor defining element of the neighborhood character.

- New expansion should be designed to avoid overshadowing neighboring gardens, existing sunlight decks or sunny yard space.

- Third floor additions exceeding 500 square feet would require two exits on the stairway.

Rochelle O'Sullivan

- If this project were allowed to be built according to the plans, we would loose considerable light and air into our homes.

- This photo provided by the developer was missing our third floor window.

- 97 percent of Miraloma residents that read our petition signed it. Almost all residents in the neighborhood feel the same way we do.

Rory O'Sullivan

- I have two important issues relating to our neighbor's expansion plan: the precedence for density and the shading of skylights or center patios.

- Miraloma Park is a suburb within the city for a moderate price with open space, quiet and tranquility.

- Modest homes, double space, and available parking are three characteristics that make Miraloma Park attractive to families with young children.

- Limit the addition to 500 square feet from the back of their house.

Fran O'Sullivan

- Families do not move out of San Francisco because a house would be 2,000 square feet instead 2,264 square feet.

- We are asking our neighbors to reduce the 765 square foot addition to 500 square feet. That adjustment would [not] intensify the problem of families leaving the City.

- It was brought up that other homes on Juanita Way have full third story additions. These homes were mentioned as detached homes at the opposite end of Juanita with much wider lots.

- It was also presented that it was a hardship to raise a family with three children in a 2,000 square foot home. Hardship is living in a one room studio with an extended family in the Tenderloin.

Sue Kirkham, Miraloma Park Improvement Club

- We sent a letter supporting staff's recommendation. I would like to read a copy of it.

Gary Noguera, Board of Miraloma Park Improvement Club

- Our organization is very active in the City. We worked very diligently with the Commission to get our guidelines approved unanimously with resolution 14903 on October 21, 1999.

- We think very highly of these recommendations and have worked very hard to maintain the quality of the neighborhood.

Helen Lam, Project Sponsor

- I read the Miraloma Park Design Guidelines with respect to the neighbors concern about the skyline in the lower roof. I talked to them even before filing for the permit.

- We lowered the ceiling height from 9 feet to 8 feet and removed the wall in order to make the structure less tall.

- We cut back the corner in order to make the building cast less shadow on the adjacent building's skylight

- We built a model and showed it to PG&E and did a study showing and from March to September at 9a.m. and 12p.m. It does not cast shadows.

- The only time that cast shadows is at 3p.m. in March and September only to the first skylight on the lower roof.

- I have provided three different options including requests from President Alexander, Mr. Sugaya and Ms. Olague.

- This project is important to accommodate this family of three children of different ages.

Mary Fitzgerald

- We are right now living in a 2 bedroom and 1 bath house and we would like to build the third floor addition to expand and make room for our growing family.

- The O'Sullivan were not pleased with the results of the shadow studies and requested more but PG&E refused. I guess it is a standard shade study they do and they would not do any more.

- The study clearly shows that our addition impacts their skylights far less than their own third floor addition and their front roof do.

- Very few residents build up in Miraloma Park because a lot of them are backed up to a down sloping mountain.

- We are within the design guidelines for Miraloma Park where it requires a set back. But it does not specifically state how much and no where does it say anything about limiting your addition to 500 square feet.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as staff modified:

-Further 3 foot reduction of the master bedroom from front façade without taking or stating any position on the space layout.

-Further, the stairway is to be code compliant but minimize its impact to the area

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

ABSENT: Alexander

19. 2007.0507C (Tape IIB) (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

2810 DIAMOND STREET - west side between Chenery and Bosworth Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 6744 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.43 and 790.90, to legalize an existing large fast-food restaurant (DBA Eggettes) within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Gary Vinson, Project Sponsor

- We are a neighborhood serving location providing drinks and snacks.

- We offer a venue for everybody to relax at that is not a formula retail. There are only three in the Bay Area.

- We are a small partnership and we would like to be a community asset.

- Due to the size of our building, we have to apply for a large fast food restaurant.

- This promotes small businesses in the neighborhood and provides jobs for non-skilled and low-skilled people in the neighborhood.

- Currently, there is only one other fast food location in the neighborhood. I believe it does contribute to the economic growth of the neighborhood and serves all people of all ages.

- There would be no impact on traffic or parking based on a survey that the City provided due to the size of our location.

- There are no modifications to the building and hours of operation would not change. We have not had any complaints in the past nine months that we have been in operation.

Katherine Fong, Project Sponsor

- I am one the partners of Eggettes. I have been living in Glen Park for over 25 years.

- We are a family oriented place and have promoted growth in the community by contributing to multiple fundraising events and festivals and we are working closely with the library.

- One main concern of the community is the lack of a community liaison and I would like to volunteer to do that.

ACTION: Approved with drafted conditions and with a further condition to require the liaison person to call the Glen Park Association's Zoning and Planning Chair.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17476

20. 2007.0571D (Tape IIB) (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

4329 25TH STREET - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets; Lot 033, in Assessor's Block 6545 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.22.2216, which proposes construction of a one-story horizontal rear addition to an existing single-family residence. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Amanda Minami, Discretionary Review Requestor

- I have a kitchen with one rear window that provides light. It is the only source of light for that room facing south.

- My second level that composes most of my living space - kitchen and family room - faces that direction. The rear addition being proposed would block out all light in that area of my home and it will become a basement.

- In our small section of 24th Street, it is predominantly single family homes.

- There are very few rear additions and two of them have significant set backs from the property line and there are no other rear additions that stand back as far as 78 feet from the front.

- The proposed rear addition would almost cover the entire area from property line to property line with only a set back of about 3 feet.

- I have proposed that there be a more significant set back along that property line facing mine to allow for additional light into that area.

Michael Mason, Architect

- This a simple single story addition that would just give a little more modern living space to incorporate the current kitchen into a family room area.

- The roof of our building matches the roof of the addition next door.

- There are significant standing trees. And on Clipper Street they are higher than these. Everything is relatively well shaded already.

- This addition is not going to significantly affect her.

Patrick Streb, Owner

- I have been trying to work with Ms. Minami and her concerns.

- The window that she is talking about facing east actually faces west. That same room is served by three windows facing south getting almost all the sun.

- Our addition is going to be 3 feet set back from the side property line. The window that she is concerned about is 5 feet set back from her property line.

- While there are some impacts, it is relatively insignificant.

MOTION: To take DR and approve with a 3.6 foot set back from grid 1 to grid 2

AYES: Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION FAILED

MOTION: To take DR and deny the project

AYES: Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION FAILED

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

21a. 2006.0892CV (Tape IIB) (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

2145 Geneva Avenue - northwest corner of Geneva and Santos; Lot 008H in Assessor's Block 6323 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1.161(j), and 303 to construct a new self-service laundromat on the site and to convert existing office space to two residential units in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) Zoning District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A Variance is being sought to comply with the rear yard and open space requirements established in Planning Code Sections 134 and 135.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS

Spencer Thomas, Project Sponsor

- This laundromat would add a much needed service to families in the community.

- At this present time there is no laundromat in that area and the proposed one would fill a vacant lot.

- The design would provide a much better curb appeal than what is presently there.

- In relation to the two units, they have been vacant for over ten years. I had two companies that I used up until the time that I moved to the next building.

- Right now there is no use for the three office spaces.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Staff to work with Project Sponsor on graffiti maintenance

-There is to be no faux stone exterior

-To try to use an exterior skin that is resistant to graffiti.

-Increase the landscaping of the legal open space area.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17477

21b. 2006.0892CV (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

2145 Geneva Avenue - northwest corner of Geneva and Santos; Lot 008H in Assessor's Block 6323 - Variance Request for rear yard and open space, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134 and 135, for the proposed new construction and change of use, within a NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on 21a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the rear yard variance but has taken the open space variance under advisement.

22. 2007.0457T (Tape IIB; IIIA) (E. FORBES: (415) 558-6417)

VISITACION VALLEY FEE AMENDMENT: BOARD FILE 070381 - Forwarding a proposed ordinance with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 319.2 and 319.3 of the Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fee and Fund ordinance to set a lower fee level of $3.00 per square foot for principally permitted projects that do not require material General Plan, Planning Code or Zoning Map amendments, and making findings including findings under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS

Jared

- Our client, Joe, is developing a project at 2011 Bayshore Boulevard and to our knowledge this is the only project that would be affected by this amendment.

- We had approached the sponsor of this legislation to alert Supervisor Maxwell that this project was never really intended to be covered by this.

- There is an ambiguity in the Code where it drew boundaries and this project felt in it.

- The EE application was filed in April 2004 for environmental review. It is a fully code-compliant project but is actually about half of the permissible density under the zoning.

- We had come up with an idea to calculate another fee that would be fair and I can submit it for the record.

Shawn

- The legislation specifically mentions those specific projects that intended to be in this.

- Part of the process was to draw a map and Joe's project ended up in that map even thought he was never part of it, would not benefit from it, is not listed on it, and in no way was intended to be part of it.

Joe

- I thought we negotiated $1.14 a foot that I feel is fair to pay. $3 a foot is too much.

- I worked with the neighborhood and showed much respect for them and the proof is that there is no DR [Discretionary Review] request for this project.

ACTION: Approved as amended to ask the Board of Supervisors to look at the appropriateness of the fee [proposed by the developer of 2011 Bayshore Blvd.].

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

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION: 17478

6:00 P.M.

23. 2004.0160E (Tape IIIA) (M. JACINTO: (415) 575-9033)

Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report: The subject of the proposed rezoning is an approximately 2,200-acre project area that includes four neighborhoods on the eastern side of San Francisco: East SoMa, the Mission, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill and the Central Waterfront. The proposed rezoning would introduce new use (zoning) districts, including: (1) districts that would permit only production, distribution and repair (PDR) uses; (2) districts that would permit at least some PDR uses in combination with commercial and/or residential uses; (3) districts mixing residential and commercial uses; and (4) new residential-only districts. The new districts would replace existing industrial, commercial and residential single-use districts. The project would also include certain adjustments to height limits. In conjunction with the proposed rezoning, the Planning Department is also developing area plans for inclusion within the General Plan for the four neighborhoods in the project area. These plans address policy-level issues pertaining to housing, transportation, historic resources, urban design (including building heights and urban form), open space, and community facilities.

Note: written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on August 31, 2007.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required.

SPEAKERS

Jazzie Collins

- My comment is concerning the community safety element. I noticed that there are only three policies that are listed on our hard copy on page 90; policy 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8.

- Are there more policies that the general public can review on community safety elements?

Joseph Ferrucci

- Our law firm was recently retained by Chesly's Home, a development company that controls some properties in the East SOMA area on Harrison between Second and Third Streets.

- We have just begun to examine the Draft EIR on behalf of our client and were very surprised and concerned that it does not appear to consider a higher density development of taller building heights on the western slope of Rincon Hill.

- Currently, there is a tower rising at the top of Rincon Hill to approximately 600 feet.

- I urge the Commission to consider taller building heights on the western side of Rincon Hill.

Marideth Tomas, Neighborhood Parks Council

- The Draft EIR does not adequately recognize that parks and recreational facilities are an essential component of healthy neighborhoods and can not be replaced.

- The draft memorandum of the San Francisco Eastern Neighborhoods needs assessment stating that 14.5 acres of land would be needed for open space and parks under the plan's rezoning scenarios.

- The EIR should be amended to include corrections in the existing inventory and include enforceable mitigation requirements that will ensure that adequate publicly accessible park and recreational facilities are included as a condition of increased residential density.

Robert Mayers

- I would like to discuss errors in the East SOMA existing land use map, figure 7 on page 39 of the draft EIR.

- The map overstates the presence of PDR uses in this area. It was announced that this area would be zoned mix used with affordable only housing as an overlay.

- Our survey has found 20 buildings in a small area that the map mis-spoke as PDR. Some of them are multistory large office with retail mixed use but no PDR at all.

- Our concern is that SLI [Service Light Industrial] in the area is being replaced with modern economically viable office type uses.

- Have the map revised to reflect what is actually out there.

Alvaro Sanchez

- We believe that the Eastern Neighborhoods is a wonderful opportunity for us to be able to work with the City and be able to reach the goal of building more affordable housing.

- The DEIR does not really reflect the need of affordable family housing as required in this new zoning process. There is a lot of language about affordable and inclusionary housing.

Chris

- There is a new measure coming out about parking increase and it is going to have a really significant impact in the Eastern SOMA and I would like to see some ways to capture that impact.

- Other thing is the Housing Element and how that impacts the timeline of the process. I would like to see a published timeline about how it is going to be incorporated.

Marilyn Amini

- You have four substantial areas in San Francisco being proposed for land reclassification.

- Two are transit oriented districts. In the DEIR, there are only seven lines describing those districts whereas in the plan that contains the legislation for those districts, there are 200 full pages.

- People who reside in these areas have not received notice regarding the proposed reclassification and CEQA Chapter 31 requires that there be early on participation of people.

- The time for consideration of this Draft Environmental Impact Report should be extended so that all members in the community are able to respond due to the Summer Hiatus.

ACTION: After public testimony and without taking action on the draft EIR document, the Commission extended the public response period to close of business on September 14, 2007.

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

EXCUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS

Marilyn Amini

- As a matter of general process, extending the period for the public to have time to respond does not really satisfy the need for notification.

- The burden is not on the people to notify other people but on the Planning Department. It has not been met because there is no adequate notice to those people who would be affected.

Adjournment: 7:24 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, August 30, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

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

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:29 PM