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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

October 12, 2006

October 12, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 12, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT: 1:36 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner; Craig Nikitas, Isolde Wilson, Michael E. Smith, Michael Jacinto, Kate Conner, Michael Li, 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. 2006.0734C (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

3192 16TH STREET - north side between Guerrero and Valencia - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 726.48 and 790.38 for Other Entertainment in the Valencia NCD (Neighborhood Commercial) District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The existing bar use, d.b.a.  Double Dutch , formerly known as  Cama , will not change. The bar will be changing ownership and the new owner is seeking authorization for non-live music entertainment, specifically a deejay. Hours of operation will remain 5pm to 2am. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of September 21, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

2. 2006.0821D (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

1372-1374 UNION STREET - north side between Polk and Larkin Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0525 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.12.05.9511, proposing to construct horizontal and vertical additions to the existing two-unit, two-story over basement structure to provide additional living area for each unit and to accommodate a garage in the ground floor 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 revised

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2006)

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.

3. 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 Alexander

  1. I have been absent for a while.
  2. My mother is gravely ill and I've been in Illinois.
  3. I have been absent for a number of weeks.
  4. The Situation continues and I thank you for your prayers and your consideration of that matter.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. We are in receipt today of a housing inventory, which looks interesting.
  2. I haven't had a chance to read the entire thing since I just received it.
  3. The cover page had interesting findings.
  4. Perhaps Dr. Ghosh could answer.
  5. The second part says that almost 800 new affordable units were constructed.
  6. I'm assuming that is part of the 1,870.
  7. That is over 40% of the units we built were affordable.
  8. The housing was in the eastern part of the city.
  9. I guess what I question is in terms of the 2660 Harrison situation where we have a moratorium on projects; if in fact one of the parts of this action is the fact that the type of housing being built is not reflective of the population. It seems that is not the case in 2005.
  10. Based upon the statistic, it seems like that is not a valid assertion.
  11. I wanted to raise that point and perhaps Dr. Ghosh could comment.
  12. I was surprised that the percentage of affordable units was so high compared to the ones built.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. We expect to schedule the housing inventory as an informational item for you where we go through the details.
  2. You raised an interesting point.
  3. Small note that there are peeks and valleys in housing performance and you can't really understand the trend from one report.
  4. But in the main, we have been producing the same proportion of affordable housing for a long period of time – about 25%.
  5. Since we are producing more overall housing, the number of affordable housing is also larger.
  6. We will schedule an informational hearing for you.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I watched the Land Use Committee yesterday.
  2. The discussion on the Eastern Neighborhoods was, I thought, pretty &
  3. I have a concern for us as commissioners.
  4. There is a disconnect with what the public is feeling and where the department is or isn't able to fulfill in terms of certain area plans and what not.
  5. So after seeing it, I think that it is important that we do have the opportunity to hear them – the Eastern Neighborhoods resolution I believe Supervisor Maxwell offered.
  6. One of the questions I had was when I came in five minutes into the meeting and what I kept on getting was that there were additional amendments that were introduced by the department.
  7. If that is the case, I want to know why we as commissioners were never informed of any of those amendments?
  8. There is no excuse for this.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. I did a report under Board Matters on yesterday's item.
  2. We will give you the information we have on that.
  3. When the item is announced, I will give you a fairly detailed brief on what happened yesterday.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I'm interested in information.
  2. I think that it has been the practice or the understanding that any Supervisor driven legislation or resolutions that relates to Planning will come back to us and we will have the ability to weigh in on it.
  3. It sounds to me like we didn't weigh in, the department did, and we will get information that this is what's going on.
  4. I think we are supposed to weigh in and create an impacting policy and have our discussions as well.
  5. It makes me feel uncomfortable that amendments were offered and we had no input on any of the amendments whether we approved or disapproved. Nothing.
  6. We had a hearing by Sara Dennis.
  7. I don't remember her alluding to any amendments that were going to be included during that discussion of the resolution.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. The time we reported on housing issues we did not know of this resolution.
  2. This came down the pipe.
  3. Even the 30-day reading period that is required was waved.
  4. This was an extraordinary circumstance.
  5. We barely had time to get back to the Board with the concerns and comments and recommendations that we had.
  6. We urged the Board to refer the resolution, which is not required, to you.
  7. They as a courtesy and recognizing the importance of the issue have referred it to you and scheduled a hearing on the 26th just for this purpose.
  8. But again, let me explain the circumstances
  9. We had just a few days. No meetings.

Commissioner Olague

  1. Sara Dennis has given us the Eastern Neighborhood addition. It had been sitting around for three weeks.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. This is a different resolution than what Sara Dennis reported on.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I guess then just some information would have been good.
  2. Some rational behind why amendments were going to be introduced would have been nice to have.

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. There is an item later on the agenda that I will be recusing myself on – 275 10th Street.
  2. It triggered a thought in my mind.
  3. Having undertaken the historic resource evaluation of that project, we realized there were a number of other similar evaluations of historic resources that were undertaken in the south of Market area immediately in the vicinity of 10th and Folsom and eighth and Harrison and other areas.
  4. I think to their credit these were done separately by different companies for different purposes. But I think the interesting thing was that the conclusions that were reached under each of the separate surveys indicated there was a potential for perhaps a historic district in the area.
  5. And after many years, the department has issued a request for proposals to undertake work to gather the information that is collected and add a survey component to that so that the department can have a more comprehensive idea of what exists in the south of market area.
  6. I would like to commend the department for doing that

Commissioner Lee

  1. Last week the San Francisco Daily had an article about the hotel on Lombard Street.
  2. Could you give a status about that?
  3. Apparently the neighbors were upset and Supervisor Pier entered into it.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. I would be happy to report on that in Director's Report

Commissioner Moore

  1. Regarding what Commissioner Olague is talking about
  2. Under emerging complex issues it would be helpful for the staff on a weekly basis to bring the issues to the Commission's attention.
  3. The Eastern Neighborhood is a very controversial plan.
  4. I think, to give us some background, it might be important, as part of Director's Report, for you to provide us with information so we will know what is going on at a Board hearings or something in a newspaper so we might be able to respond to it.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. If I may point out. I may be mistaken but last week Mr. Sider, in his report did inform you it was scheduled.
  2. At that time we didn't know what was being proposed. It was back and forth on draft.
  3. It was not until the day of the hearing that we had a full resolution to really react to.
  4. We did the best we could under the circumstances.
  5. We have let the Land Use Committee know we did not have the time and we urged them to have this referred to you and they exceeded to that request.
  6. I will go into the details of what transpired yesterday when that item is announced.

Commissioner Moore

  1. I am aware of the public concerns about Eastern Neighborhood presentations.
  2. I think in support of Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Olague we need to find a way to create more time to properly be informed and participate in these reviews because in the end we are jointly responsible for the outcome.
  3. I don't think we got it late or rushed to let this boil up in the manner it did last night.
  4. I wanted to support the comments that were made.
  5. Hearing about the Land Use hearing, there were elements of it that are disturbing to me.
  6. None-the-less, I think there are some things we need to talk about policy-wise as far as how we communicate with staff and how staff communicates with the Commission on issues of that nature.
  7. I would like to calendar for next week a closed session to discuss our Director's search.
  8. I would also like to bring to the Commission's attention an article that was brought up in the paper regarding considering grocery stores exempt from formula retail laws.
  9. I don't know how to respond to it.
  10. I would like to see that everybody is aware of this particular legislation, particularly neighborhood grocery stores that have impacts, given their size and location, and I would like to see that perhaps you could give us a brief on what this entails.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. Commissioner we worked with Supervisor Elsbernd on this legislation; that it would come before you for a formal hearing and recommendation to the Land Use Committee.
  2. All these other items that are amendments to other codes that don't necessarily come before you are resolutions that do not apply in this case.
  3. This was an amendment to the Planning Code.
  4. You would have a full 90 days once that is sent to us to bring it to you.
  5. The Department has been involved in the discussion and somewhat involved in the drafting of those issues.

Commissioner Moore

  1. I assume you will make a full-fledged presentation?

Dr. Ghosh

  1. There will be a full calendared hearing; public notice on this in the future and you will have the opportunity to make a motion and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee and the Full Board on it.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

4. Director's Announcements

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Director Macris is out of town
  2. Although I wasn't prepared, I will do a general response to 2026 Lombard Street.
  3. About three years ago this commission heard a conditional use for a hotel on Lombard Street.
  4. All hotels in San Francisco have been conditional uses for the past 10 years.
  5. The neighbors who backed onto this project were very concerned about it.
  6. Typically when you have a neighborhood commercial district and residential behind, there are conflicts over what happens with the design.
  7. My recollection is that the commission cut back the project in the rear to respond to the neighborhood's concerns.
  8. The project was appealed to the Board of Supervisors under their conditional use power.
  9. In September 2003, the Board acted on this item at about 2 a.m. in the morning – I remember that hearing went to 6 in the morning.
  10. The Board cut that building back further by about 20 feet from the rear property line.
  11. And the rear property line is the important issue because the site is not rectangular.
  12. The site is like a rectangle with two corners taken out of it.
  13. There is a rear property line and then further forward, there are two other property lines that are parallel to the rear property line.
  14. Is this making any sense at all?
  15. We have a rectangle with two squares taken out.
  16. What the issue comes down to now is when the Board said set it back 20 feet from the rear property line, which rear property line? Only the very rear or the two parallel to the rear property lines?
  17. Staff reviewed the building permit as it came through.
  18. Staff's interpretation was that the Planning Commission and therefore the Board and their analysis seemed to only be talking about the rear most rear property line.
  19. It comes to my attention.
  20. Lucky me, I get to interpret what the Board of Supervisors did.
  21. I have the transcripts and tape.
  22. I may talk to the Supervisors.
  23. I will keep them informed on what I intend to do.
  24. I had discussions with the City Attorney.
  25. I have not made any determination.
  26. I hope to make one in the near future.
  27. Either way you will see my head hoisted to parts of this building no matter which way I rule on it.

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

BOS:

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner reported:

  1. I have given you two resolutions. One that was amended at yesterday's Land Use Committee after the hearing with our presentation and sent to you for your consideration. We have scheduled a hearing for that consideration on the 26th.
  2. This is a non-binding resolution that is not required to come to you.
  3. But as you will see, it pertains to very important Planning policies and decisions so the Board exceeded to our request that it be sent to your for your review and deliberation.
  4. Staff had very little time to respond to this.
  5. In our preliminary assessment we came up with two very grave concerns.
  6. One was the ability of the Department to really in a feasible and practical way perform on what was being asked of the Department.
  7. The second was if we included many of the things that were being asked of us, there would be delays in the schedule that everyone wanted to maintain.
  8. Being faced with these two objectives that did not accommodate each other from deadlines and more work, we had to represent the technical difficulties in being able to perform.
  9. The simple message was easy to give that it would cause delays and it would require us to do things that are possibly not feasible, at least not at first blush, or not practical to implement through land use area plans and General Plan implementation.
  10. In trying to explain the difficulties, they get to be technical.
  11. Many of the technical details discussed yesterday have been accommodated in the revised ordinance that the Board sent you.
  12. There still remain very difficult issues we believe need your deliberation.
  13. As regards to the delay, wherever we are today the Eastern Neighborhoods is on a course that with proper diligence and dispatch we will be able to deliver on schedule – which now is around October of 2007. By then we would have completed all staff work for its consideration for adoption by you and the Board.
  14. That would require us to publish the draft EIR in April of 2007 and give us six months of hearing it, complete the workshops and adopt the plans.
  15. We represented to the Board there are certain things in the Department's control as far as the schedule is concerned.
  16. When it gets to hearings and response to public comment that is not something we can prejudge.
  17. It happened. And we have to react to the comments and the number of hearings that will be required to resolve the issues.
  18. What we represented was if we got distracted from the course that we had set ourselves and had to stop and rethink the scope of the EIR, and the scope of the plan implementation elements that would then require an undetermined amount of time and resources.
  19. We've fully deployed our resources and the time available.
  20. If there were more work and more scoping and redoing of EIRs to be done, it would take more time.
  21. A simple example of the re-scoping would be that the Board has asked us to concentrate on the Eastern Neighborhoods area as it is defined in this resolution, which is different from what we scoped out in the EIR and plan. It's all South of Market and in our plans we don't include West SOMA.
  22. That is an example of the technical work that needs to be re-scoped to entertain some of the Board's decisions.
  23. Beyond that, the Land Use Committee resolution would hold all of us to find it consistent with a specific set of General Plan objectives.
  24. Not on balance, but individually applied to the fullest extent and make sure that the plans are consistent with each and every one of those General Plan objectives.
  25. As you know, the General Plan is internally consistent but there are competing objectives.
  26. The way the General Plan objectives apply to particular circumstances is you do an on balance determination of the priorities that prevail given the circumstance.
  27. Take the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.
  28. What exactly would you like to actually happen in that area?
  29. Therefore, you would look at the objectives of the plans and find it consistent with the General Plan.
  30. If you follow along with me you will see that we are required to find the objectives and policies cited in the  Where As's as the set of policies with which the entire plan needs to be consistent.
  31. Unless we get an agreement that it is on balance, that we find it consistent, we believe it will almost be impossible to do so.
  32. There will be competing objectives, as you will see.
  33. The first that come up is the Housing Elements objective of establishing and recognizing the need for housing and the kinds of housing that you need.
  34. For background commissioners, the Housing Element establishes a need for San Francisco in terms of total housing units that need to be produced in a certain time period.
  35. That translated to 20,400 units in a time frame that ends in the year 2009 of which 13,500 need to be below market, which is 64%.
  36. It's a noble objective and persuades the city to do its best to perform to meet that need.
  37. It's not the city's practice nor does it have the ability to come close to that level of below market production.
  38. We have on average been able to maintain about 25% of the total housing production as below market.
  39. Even in areas where we have more public control like in redevelopment areas we have been able to achieve 30 to 35% at the most.
  40. Faced with that reality, if you look at what the Board is really requesting, the plans to perform against, we have produced 3,500 units for affordable, below market units. That's 25%
  41. If in whatever circumstances we are able to reach our target of 2,400 units in this time frame – and we expect to do that – in order to meet fully this performance standard, we would now have to produce 110% of what is left at affordable levels.
  42. Any housing unit that is produced from now on, to meet this objective, would not only have to be a hundred percent affordable, but also go beyond and produce more than the targets to reach the 64%.
  43. And if you read through the Board's resolution, you will find that we are being asked to do this all in the Eastern Neighborhood's area.
  44. And we are being asked to identify and preserve it.
  45. But I think it got changed to identify and preserve sites that would allow the implementation or production of these kinds of housing that I just described.
  46. To us it seemed that the Planning Department with its purview and jurisdiction was in no way able to perform to these standards.
  47. We felt it would be remiss if we didn't point out the difficulties and we did.
  48. As far as these goals and objectives are concerned, unless we add a qualification of that, it's a realm of infeasibility. We can't attain these standards.
  49. There will be a presentation and a case report given to you next week for a presentation on the 26th.
  50. There are other requirements that go along with it that have to be equally applied.
  51. When you consider that all the housing that need to be produced in Eastern Neighborhood's area and pile on top of that the requirements for protecting PDR needs in the same area; existing and new PDR needs, providing open space and transportation systems adequate for that amount of growth within this area; if you put all that together and take out the unbalanced clause, it is impossible to produce plans that would meaningfully be able to achieve these goals.
  52. We pointed that out.
  53. We also suggested that these things are not scoped out in the existing EIR as it is being pursued today.
  54. If we were to decide that this needs to be included we will have to re-scope the EIR to figure out what the implications this would be.
  55. This is a preliminary staff evaluation of what is written in the resolution.
  56. We urged the Land Use Committee to refer it to you.
  57. They have. They continued the hearing to November 1. We have scheduled this for the 26th.
  58. I'm told that we cannot discuss this.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. In terms of the Housing Element, is it not a fact that when that was approved much was put in the language such that the things that were recommended seemed to be desirable but not required?
  2. This was one of the big items that came up.
  3. The language was modified on many issues, not merely on housing production, but on any contentious issues.
  4. It was modified to the effect that these were suggestions.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I guess I would like some rational on the General Plan and what our obligations are in terms of the General Plan.
  2. Whether we are, in fact, mandated to follow certain findings in the General Plan and the Housing Element.
  3. And I think I would like some light shed on the market-rate housing question and an explanation as to why we met and exceeded the goal.
  4. I keep hearing that things are going to be delayed and things are not feasible.
  5. Why is that?
  6. I guess one thing I was concerned about was the transportation piece.
  7. I'd like to have elaboration on what the Department is doing.
  8. I heard a lot of different responses to that question over the past year and a half. Now I hear it is being put off to MUNI.
  9. That is news to me. That is not what I understood the case to be before.
  10. About a week ago, I guess, we received a copy of the legislation on conditional uses and demolitions that was co-sponsored by several supervisors. What is the timeline on this stuff?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Commissioner, I think you are asking about McGoldrick introducing legislation that would require conditional use for demolition?

Commissioner Olague

  1. Yes

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. That would have 90 days after it is transmitted to us to be brought to you,
  2. You may be aware that the department is preparing revisions to your demolition policy.
  3. As part of that policy, we were proposing code amendments that would make the demolition policy a mandatory discretionary review as part of the code, not as your policy.
  4. That is somewhat correlating to what the supervisor is proposing.
  5. The intent was the same and we were in discussions with the supervisor about that.
  6. We will continue to be in discussions.
  7. I think the main difference between what we proposed is mandatory discretionary review in the code or mandatory CU – to the Board of Appeals or Supervisors?
  8. We haven't had a chance to review it in a lot of detail.
  9. My recollection is there were not a lot or any specific criteria beyond the necessary and desirable in Section 303.
  10. I think we are close. The question is the process rather than the substance.

Commissioner Olague

  1. When we received the packet, how much longer is it before we schedule a hearing to make comments on the legislation?
  2. I think we receive one or two a week.
  3. I don't see they are being calendared that often.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. A lot of the things you have seen recently are not amendments to the Planning Code.
  2. You are seeing them as a courtesy by staff bringing them to you for your input, but it is not mandated.
  3. I will go out on a limb and say maybe the Commission wants to communicate to the Board that you would like to see them.
  4. This is an amendment to the Planning Code so you will see it [within] 90 days from when it is brought over.
  5. What we were originally planning on doing was holding an initiation of our proposed amendments on October 26.
  6. Yesterday we sent an email to the supervisor indicating we wanted to proceed on that. We wanted to hear our ideas and his at the same time.
  7. Maybe we will withdraw our ideas or accept his proposal.
  8. We will get the two together. Whether you see two things or we manage to bring you one with the history so you have every option, you will see that within 90 days and have a formal hearing on it.

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hestor

  1. I ask that you instruct the staff to move up the discussion on the Maxwell Eastern Neighborhood to next week.
  2. The Department scheduled things the last Thursday, before a planning deadline.
  3. I think once you get into the issue with a dialogue back and forth as opposed to a monologue, you will have questions.
  4. I ask the Commission to direct staff to schedule the Eastern Neighborhood to next week so you can have it to slop over, which I think will happen.
  5. I wanted to straiten out the legislation on demolitions.
  6. There is legislation that came from Supervisor Maxwell two weeks ago.
  7. Mr. Badiner at the end confused it with legislation that Supervisor McGoldrick is talking about, which I think is on the scale of buildings. But I agree that the demolition matter should be heard at the same time you initiate your hearing on demolitions.
  8. I ask that you don't let everything go to the 90th day.

John Bardis

  1. The Director's report needs to be flushed out a bit.
  2. Please be advised, there is a resolution before the committee that was heard yesterday regarding Eastern Neighborhoods.
  3. But there is also the ordinance that's before the Board that was an informational presentation continued to September 21st regarding implementation of and community improvements.
  4. There is an ordinance pending before the Board. It had one hearing and one reading. The second reading is next Thursday. It's still not passed by the Board.
  5. The resolution yesterday was heard for the first time.
  6. It was only introduced a week or two before and just came like a railroad into the Board of Supervisors.
  7. Staff was there. They spoke, but at no time did they say this is something that staff was not in a position to comment on because they hadn't been to the Commission.
  8. They came ahead and gave amendments. They approved that kind of a process by their own actions and circumvented your responsibility.
  9. That report the Director was making was not complete in that regard.
  10. The next thing is when it came to the question of this matter being referred to the Planning Commission, the Chair never announced that he only said it would be continued to November 1st.
  11. What this process is about is the Board doesn't want you to review what affects planning in the city and encroaches your responsibility under the City Charter.
  12. That is want the amendment to the code is about.
  13. It is a circumvention of your authority.
  14. It is incumbent upon you to uphold your responsibility; that you inform the Board that your want to be referred to, not as a courtesy, but under the City Charter for anything that pertains to planning -- whether it is Administrative or Planning or Recreation Code – if it refers to planning, it is to be referred to the Planning Commission.

Hiroshi Fukuda

  1. First or all, Commissioner Alexander the public missed you. The Commission missed you. Your wisdom and guidance were sorely missed. Welcome back.
  2. Read a letter from Judy Berkowitz, President of San Francisco Neighborhoods, regarding the community improvements and Eastern Neighborhoods.
  3. The Coalition urged the Planning Commission to notice the above referenced legislation proposed by members of the Board of Supervisors.
  4. At three meetings we protested the Board not referring this to the Planning Commission and urged the Planning Commission to protect its authority granted under the City Charter for public hearing of the proposed legislation.
  5. We urge you [the Planning Commission] to calendar the proposed legislation for public hearing and protect your right of review as provided by City Charter.

Marilyn Amini

  1. I am glad you are back Commissioner Alexander. I hope things are well with your mother.
  2. I am going to be speaking about the item that was heard yesterday, the resolution at the Land Use meeting.
  3. As you heard from Planning Deputy Director Ghosh, it's a significant policy item and needs to come to you.
  4. The Supervisors were not eager to have it come to you. You are being cut out of the loop.
  5. It appears in many instances you are being pushed to respond fast to very significant items. That piece of legislation the Department said they didn't have time to respond to.
  6. It was introduced by Supervisor Maxwell on the 26th of September and came to the department on the second of October.
  7. It should have come to you because it's your responsibility. You have the Charter vested jurisdiction to make determinations in city land use policies that are of a discretionary nature.
  8. Anything related to land use in terms of policy should come before this commission.
  9. Don't be pushed and let them tell you that you have only until November first.
  10. You have as much time as you need.
  11. As Ms. Hestor said, there will be dialogue on this.
  12. The Department has important information to give you.
  13. You are the over viewer of the Planning Department.
  14. Regarding the piece of legislation that Hiroshi was referring to: that is the Community Improvement in Eastern Neighborhoods that did not come to you.
  15. We asked three times more than that to have it come back.
  16. That was a paired down of the Better Neighborhood's legislation that this commission rejected and had many of the same items in it but in brief.
  17. In these pieces of legislation there are suggestions for community based planning proposed.
  18. This is not defined.
  19. You are the commission the public should have as the hearer of their comments.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

  1. I wanted to take a moment to set the record straight commissioners.
  2. I received the legislation over the weekend on a Friday.
  3. Staff has decided to report to you that there would be a hearing at the only Commission hearing that has been in the interim period.
  4. Beyond that, I want to say that at yesterday's hearing we felt that we would be remiss if we did not put it in the Board's record our concerns at the staff level.
  5. We did preface and conclude our statements with a clear expression of our discomfort of not including you in the deliberations.
  6. We made it clear these are staff comments that have not the benefit of your input and comment and advice.

BOA:

Zoning Administrator Badiner reported [at end of the calendar, following the General Public Comment category]:

  1. I think there was one item of interest on Fulton Street to reactivate a license for beer and wind.
  2. The sponsor had a health food store. It was converted to a full-service restaurant.
  3. The owner deactivated the ABC license.
  4. After that, the Board of Supervisors imposed an Alcohol Special Use District.
  5. The project sponsor now comes back and days they want to do off-site, high-end sake sales.
  6. The Board disagreed with the planning staff's denial and believes this is a special case.
  7. The vote was 5 to 0.
  8. The nice guy won.

6. (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

ELEMENTS OF DESIGN: Terminology – Informational presentation: The first of several ongoing staff presentations about the elements of building design.

No Action is to be taken

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of October 5, 2006)

Highlights of presentation by Craig Nikitas:

  1. Talked on the elements that make a good building.
  2. Why is terminology important?
  3. Nomenclature is a system for naming things.
  4. Architectural names use icons.
  5. By considering this we are forced to think about the concepts they embody that will help us understand the buildings we review and what makes them good buildings.
  6. I will talk about terms in pairs.
  7. I want to set them up in pairs because we can consider how they are similar and the differences among the members of the pairs.
  8. We will talk about siteing and massing, height and bulk, shape and form, structure and materials; rhythm and imagination; symmetry and balance, complexity and coherence.
  9. Siteing is the location of the structure on the lot. It is the footprint of the building; how the building hits the ground. It is where the structure is on the site and where is the open space. It relates to setback, locations and uses of open space, entries and parking, traffic, the sun and shade.
  10. Massing is a three-dimensional distribution volume on the site.
  11. It s when you stack a roof and floor plates over the building footprint. It has relationship to height and bulk.
  12. Height and Bulk. They have common meanings in English. In planning they are dimensional elements. When we talk about height in technical planning code, we are talking about vertical dimensions of the building. On the other hand, bulk is a look at horizontal dimensions that include the longest building wall in the plan; the longest diagonal dimensions and the floor plate area. The bulk is how wide it is in height and the effect it has on the street wall.
  13. In planning, when we talk about scale what we are looking at is a relationship of the building to its environment to the street; to the adjacent buildings. We perceive the scale through our knowledge of the human body–how big we are. It is about the relationship of the building site to the external world.
  14. Proportion is the relationship of the building's elements to each other. It's the width of the building to its height. It's height or width of the building and individual elements. It is about internal relationships of the building elements and itself.
  15. Complexity. A simple façade can be elegant. Sometimes it is appropriate to have a subdued and un-complex response. Other times complexity adds a richness and appropriateness in certain settings.
  16. Coherence refers to a harmonious relationship among the various elements. It can let the building read through the façade in a mixed-use building where there are storefronts and people living above. Coherence can be achieved by having a strength and purpose to the design and avoiding the feeling of arbitrary decisions.
  17. Lastly, Composition is the arrangement of the elements. It's how things are organized.
  18. Part of composition can be movement. It's a visual quality that results from design elements that draw the eye in a certain direction.

SPEAKERS:

Maryann Miller

  1. I want to address one absence here under height and bulk; siteing and massing.
  2. At all times when we are measuring how tall buildings are, how big they look and how big a bulk to you, you are looking at whether or not it's on a hill, which could make a four-story building look like a seven-story building.
  3. You have to address this section.
  4. I would like to have that added.
  5. I would say that I revised the language of Mr. Nikita's presentation in the case of the corner building he showed early on where the massing is on a corner and you see two facades. It was gracious of him to imply that a variance be considered so it would complete the block face.
  6. Then what? A wall everywhere?
  7. I don't know if we want that.
  8. Corner buildings are a special case.
  9. If you have a requirement for rear yard open space there is more coverage allowed by the code.
  10. I think it's gratuitous to say to close up an open space viewed to the street.

Joe Butler

  1. I'm an architect in the city.
  2. I think it's a nice presentation, if you are not skilled in the terms or language you would use around town and look and see if you can find examples that do please and delight.
  3. I think uniformity and exception could be the 12th pairing, and in some ways it goes to Maryann's comments in the building law and do we want the entire block wrapped.
  4. The exception with the block face can be an inviting and delightful thing.
  5. When you are in a part of Russian Hill and the buildings make the street wall in a strong way and you come to a smaller building with gardens and trees, that exception can be something pleasing and delightful.

ACTION: Informational only. No action required.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKERS:

Charles Marsteller

  1. I will talk about citywide institutional master planning for all facilities in the City.
  2. State law now requires the City to retrofit and rebuild the acute medical system to ensure hospital operations after a seismic event.
  3. The Mayor directs the Health Department to have a master plan for sub-acute medical facilities.
  4. This is separate from universal health clinic care.
  5. During the fiscal times, I know DCP staff advocated the developed of an institutional plan for acute medical in the City suggesting that the hospitals fund it. This was not done.
  6. From what I learned form the new positions, no one is assigned the task.
  7. Why are we building? The State wants hospitals without a master plan.
  8. Individual institutional master plans don't make sense.
  9. Hospitals as a business have marketing objectives. This is one role they play in our seismic zone.
  10. CPMC's architects say they are [closing] their place on Van Ness. They said they want to be in competition with the hospitals in the city.
  11. There is a question of the public interest and geographic balance.
  12. Absent such a plan, it may be that DCP and the city is placing at risk hospital EIRs, including CPMC, which is something before us in the future.
  13. How many miles will citizens of the western part of the city have to walk to get critically injured to the hospital?
  14. I want to respectfully suggest that you place this question on your agenda as soon as possible.
  15. There is time for us to catch up to the rebuilding efforts underway.

Sue Hestor

  1. I spent five to six yeas of my life with official health planning bodies.
  2. We are struggling with provisions of health services as a reasonable matter. So we didn't have hospital wars, which we did at that time, and also that services were provided throughout the City.
  3. Medical institutions more than educational institutions drove the Institutional Master Plan Ordinance, which you have heard briefly once.
  4. It was designed to be a full disclosure ordinance, so that before there was CEQA, you could get your project out there a week before it was approved.
  5. When they came through at the same time in the early 70's there was a revolt because they were surrounding the same area from Pacific Heights to the Inner Sunset.
  6. There were more proposals than the City could deal with.
  7. The Institutional Master Plan is moldering.
  8. It is for the City to look at and say what is going on. CPMC is doing the major project.
  9. They will tighten their time line and give their institutional master plan to you six months before they are coming for approval because that's the deadline they have to meet.
  10. They can't come forward unless they had a master plan meeting six months in advance.
  11. Given the range of seismic upgrades including San Francisco General, we have got to say we want to know what everyone is planning on doing now.
  12. We don't want you to sit on your Institutional Master Plan on a technicality.
  13. We think there should be discussions on how the Western part of the City is served.
  14. We had a lot of hospital closures.
  15. The Institutional Master Plan notice should be examined again to get wise input on medical services. It's not what Mr. Nikitas presented but their role is hospitals.

[A name was not given]

  1. I cut my teeth on institutional expansion actually as a former president of this Commission that became active as a citizen resulting from Saint Mary's Hospital expansion program, being the principal invader that introduced the Institutional Master Plan under former Mayor George Moscone.
  2. It provided protection for the neighborhoods and as Ms. Hestor said, it provided a breathing space so people didn't jam through the Supervisors and the Commission.
  3. In those days we were raising serious issues like, why in a City that has the largest number of hospital beds per capita, has the largest hospital costs per capita?
  4. We had a tremendous surplus of facilities in the City.
  5. We were paying a huge cost in the public in terms of the cost of services.
  6. We had the best care population in the country based on the amount of facilities we had.
  7. You have a very important responsibility that would be chartered out to provide a great service to the people of the City and to what happens to the future of health care in the City by seeing that the Institutional Master Plan is reviewed as asked for by Ms. Hestor.

  • E.REGULAR CALENDAR

7. 2006.1018D (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

2549 POST STREET - South side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 1081 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.26.3899, proposing to legalize construction of a deck projecting 6'-6 from the rear of the third floor of the building; a trellis at the southwest (rear) corner of the building at the fourth floor; and a spiral stair from the fourth floor up to a new roof deck over the penthouse. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

8. 2006.0898D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

461 CHENERYSTREET - south side between Mateo and Roanoke Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 6718 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.22.3615, proposing to raise the existing building to construct a first floor garage, construct a rear horizontal addition and a one-story vertical addition with a stair penthouse, and add a second dwelling unit to an existing single-family dwelling, located in a 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 proposed

SPEAKERS ON THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE ONLY:

Mia – DR Requestor [spoke at the beginning of the hearing when there was an announcement for a request for continuance]

  1. I object to a continuance because it's my discretionary review and my money paid for this slot to be here.
  2. They are trying to cover up things they don't want you to see.
  3. I am ready and so are my neighbors and I have given up a day of work and salary.
  4. We are all here, and we are ready.

Daniel – Representing the Project Sponsor [spoke at the time the item was called]

  1. I apologize for the confusion about the request for continuance and would like to explain what happened and renew the request for continuance to December 14th.
  2. Two days ago we heard from the Zoning Administrator that there were additional issues and the project may constitute a demolition and that we may need to go through additional review to determine whether or not it complies with the conversion guidelines before it can be approved or if we would have to revise the scope of work.
  3. We have not had an opportunity to look at the issues because we heard about it two days ago.
  4. Because of that we requested continuance to address with staff their concerns before the DR.
  5. We submitted a written request on the 10th and were advised by Michael Smith of your staff that he forwarded the request to the DR requestor and there was no objection on her part and that we wouldn't have to be here today because there was no objection.
  6. Things have changed and people have shown up to protest the continuance.
  7. Because of the short notice we had, I can't bring the project sponsor here or the architect to fully address the issues.
  8. I ask you to continue this to December 14th, which was the agreed upon date.

The Commission decided to go forward with the hearing.

SPEAKERS:

Mia Dolone – DR Requestor

  1. All vital reports that should be required on a project of this size and scale are lacking.
  2. Instead, I discover that a concern of Art Aguilar, former employee of DBI, granted a person the most specious environmental exemption.
  3. When I sought this hearing it behooves the commission to [question] Art Aguilar because untoward activity and deal making are part and parcel of business as usual at that Bureau.
  4. The fact that the Mayor had to order an FBI raid on that Bureau the very day and hour of my submitting my DR is&
  5. All studies and reviews, which now include a soil report, were not forth coming from Michael Smith.
  6. Had he done the necessary documents and my fears of imminent death and destruction [were addressed], my neighbors and I would not be here.
  7. My imminent death and destruction scenario was spelled out in my DR application submitted to Smith.
  8. This was five days prior.
  9. Undermining the stability of the wall or grant sequoia&
  10. The wind tunnel necessary&
  11. May the commission's common sense prevail before the winds do in its absence of necessary analysis that is germane to the project that caused me consternation&
  12. Douglas Gillies and an obscure absentee partner of 461 Chenery named de la Cruz, if they exist, and the contractors of record be held financially responsible to whose homes are damaged.
  13. The Gillies are required to post a $3 million dollar bond for ten years from date of construction for the sequoia to be removed [language is not clear]; service elevator, lift garages or crane hoisted over 61 [foot] roof; new tree of same variety to be installed and crater left in yard; the new sequoia over Gilly roof; all destroyed neighboring homes to be built to code.
  14. Since this is avoidable, I urge you to say no to this project.
  15. I have packets for you that differ from the ones you received from Michael Smith.

In support of DR – [name was not given]

  1. I live across the street from the proposed construction site.
  2. My concern is parking.
  3. In front of 461 there is space for two cars to park now.
  4. They are proposing a garage to go in.
  5. That will probably remove both off street parking places.
  6. They are proposing a two-lift garage in this small building.
  7. I think in theory a lift garage is a good idea.
  8. In practicality, if there are two lifts, it's a multi-unit building that will house several people.
  9. There will be at least four people and they will all have cars.
  10. This is not practical at all.
  11. I ask the commission to review this and look at that. And study it because that is not practical to do this.
  12. If they build that type of building with those units and have that many tenants in the building, it is due diligence to the owners to provide off-street parking.

Daniel – Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. We are prepared to address the issue raised in the DR request.
  2. This is a project consistent with the neighborhood character and guidelines.
  3. This is a code complying project.
  4. It will add one new housing unit and add 4 more parking spaces to the building where there are presently none.
  5. We propose a ten- foot curb cut to get to the parking spaces.
  6. One on-street space will be lost. There will be a net of three spaces added to the neighborhood.
  7. You heard from the [DR requestor] that this project was approved in violation of the California Environment Act.
  8. This project was exempt as an addition to a single family home because of it's height.
  9. It's less than 40 feet; there was no need for a shadow concern.
  10. The main complaint is that the vertical addition and the excavation building to the rear yard will damage the tree and pose a risk to the house next door.
  11. I would like to point out as far as we know there was no evidence submitted before today.
  12. I haven't seen anything from an arborist that there will be damage to the tree.
  13. Under California Law, a property [owner] has a right to remove branches or root if it is a reasonable matter.
  14. All work will be in due regard for the safety of the neighbor and if possible, without damage to her tree.
  15. As Mr. Smith said, we agreed to hire an arborist to evaluate whether or not there will be damage to the tree.
  16. If there will be damage, we will replace it with a tree more appropriate to a dense urban environment.
  17. Legally, maintaining the tree is the DR applicant's responsibility.
  18. The tree is covered in ivy.
  19. There are brown leaves on it and it is pushing over the fence.
  20. It is a maintenance problem for the sponsor.
  21. And it is really something that we could ask the DR applicant to fix, but we agreed to replace the tree if we cause damage to it.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved subject to the Zoning Administrator's determination on the demolition issues; the sponsor shall work with an arborist and replace the tree with one of 15-30 gallons of the same kind or like kind [if damaged and the DR requestor allows access for removal]

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee and Sugaya

NAYES: Moore and Olague

9. 2005.0634E (M. JACINTO: (415) 558-5988)

275 10TH STREET - three contiguous parcels in the western South of Market Area, located at 275 10th Street, 1350 Folsom Street and 64-72 Dore Street (Assessor's Block 3518, Lots 014, 017, and 029) - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project would involve demolition of three existing light industrial buildings and construction of a 5-story, 50 foot-tall building containing 134 single-room occupancy-type very low-income dwelling units for homeless adults with onsite access to supportive services, and one unit for an onsite resident property manager. The project would contain residential support services on the ground floor as well as a leasable commercial space within its frontage on Folsom Street. The project would provide 11 off-street staff parking spaces in

n at-grade garage accessible from Dore Street. The project site is within an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) Zoning District and 50-X Height and Bulk District. Note: written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on October 13, 2006.

SPEAKERS:

Ken - Executive Director of Services

  1. We are the project sponsors of 275 10th Street. It is 135 units for homeless adults. We expect to open in 2008.
  2. Our organization has been present in the SOMA since 1894, when our predecessor organization opened a center for immigrants on 2nd Street.
  3. We have been located on 8th Street, which moved there in 1941.
  4. We rebuilt that as residences in 1994 and moved to Howard in 1983, and we opened the community house as residents for homeless families.
  5. We provide permanent housing with support services for homeless adults and children.
  6. This is consistent with the city's ten-year plan to end homelessness and it is key to supportive housing.
  7. We are asking your review of the Environmental Impact Report and your approval of the report as accurate and adequate.
  8. This is a project in which we partner with the Department of Public Health for services as we do at other sites.
  9. We are partnering with the Mayor's Office of Housing.
  10. We think it is in the spirit of the SOMA neighborhoods.

Bob Hermann, Architect

  1. I would like to open by assuring you that the site for this affordable housing does not have a single tree on it. That may simplify matters.
  2. [Laughter]
  3. As I understand the purpose is to give you an accurate and broad-brush explanation of what the proposal is about.
  4. I'm not going to get into interest detail.
  5. I will be happy to answer questions if you have any.
  6. [Using slides/renderings, showed the proposed project, its design, and how it functions.]
  7. [The Commission President reminded him that the focus of this hearing was to address the environmental document.]

ACTION: Hearing held to receive public/commission comment only. No action taken.

10. 2005.1024C (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

1111 Junipero Serra Boulevard - east side, between Shields & 19th Avenue, Lot 24 on Assessor's Block 7080 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.6(b) and 710.83 to install three cellular panel antennas within a church steeple and associated equipment at the Temple United Methodist Church as part of a wireless transmission network operated by T-Mobile. The Project Site is located on a parcel with split zoning. The northern portion is located within the RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The southern portion is located within the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and in a 26-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the site is a Preferred Location Preference 1 site as it is a public-use building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS:

Alex Moore - Representing T-Mobile

  1. T-Mobile is intending to install antennas above the Sprint and Cingular antennas
  2. It will not interfere with the church.
  3. It's considered a preference one location under the City's guidelines.
  4. It provides adequate height and visually is un-obstructive.
  5. Our report concludes under the emission's guidelines of the San Francisco Public Health Department and FCC that exposure levels are below the [minimum] levels and are less than two percent of the public exposure limit.
  6. This installation will allow coverage in the surrounding residential neighborhood.
  7. It allows law enforcement and emergency personal to locate and respond to 911 calls from cell phones.
  8. A meeting was held and five people attended the meeting. They were given a brief presentation of the project. There was no opposition.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17320

11. 2006.0522C (M. LI: (415): 558-6396)

550-552 Golden Gate Avenue- north side between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street, Lots 006 and 007 in Assessor's Block 0763 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a surface parking lot for up to 25 vehicles within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District. The project site is currently vacant.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 21, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Raman - Project Engineer

  1. The project Sponsor has the support from neighboring business.
  2. They are willing to consider a three-year conditional approval of the lot or sooner of the site development plan for approval and implementation.
  3. I have a letter from McDonalds [the land owner] and we have a gentleman here to speak on this.

Drew Nash

  1. I work in the Real Estate Division of McDonalds.
  2. We are in the process of negotiating for the re-development of the site.
  3. We are working with the franchise at that location in the system to attain an agreement to develop the existing site.
  4. We are looking at a two to five year program for re-developing the site.
  5. In 1994 it was approved for 144 low-income units for senior citizens.
  6. We are looking at a comparable mixed-use development to go in that location.

[No name was given]

  1. The parking lot next door to McDonalds is fenced up and at night is broken in by the homeless.
  2. All they want to do is fix it up and give revenue for the City and parking to the neighborhood.
  3. The schools love the idea of the parking. They can park and be safe instead of it being dark and abandoned.
  4. The Commission should approve this as interim parking for two to three years.

[Name was not understood] – Liberty Management

  1. I believe one of Mr. Li's concerns is that McDonalds Corporation will take their time in terms of starting the project because the developer is coming in from Liberty Park Management.
  2. The monthly rent is something close to $3,000 a month.
  3. As indicated, it would be a good project in terms of providing a good parking place for people in the neighborhood and for teachers and parents coming to pick up kids from school.
  4. If I had my kid in that school I wouldn't want my kid to hang around people using drugs.
  5. If you walk the lot you will see needles and garbage in the lot.
  6. Even though it is fenced, people get in.

ACTION: Disapproved with amendment to the findings: page 5, Finding 11, number 2 – Strike the language that is there and say  interim uses that's parking do not support the existing neighborhood character and may delay the construction of a new project that would support the neighborhood character and provide new housing.'

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

MOTION: 17321

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS:

Marilyn Amini

  1. Substantial neighborhood organizations have requested that the Supervisors file of improvements of Eastern Neighborhoods be brought back to the Commission.
  2. The legislation sets forth and establishes major planning policy. It's a Better Neighborhood Planning and Implementation legislation that was not recommended by the Committee.
  3. You have been told it was not before you and Planning testified in your behalf at the only two Board committee hearings held on the matter.
  4. The legislation sets precedence in that it legitimizes its task force concept by codifying it as with the West SOMA Citizens Planning Task Force.
  5. The prototype West SOMA Task is politically appointed.
  6. Its planning department for planning plans expertise rests in the Planning Department
  7. As acknowledged before the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Department acknowledged functioning in advisory capacity to the West SOMA Citizen's Planning Task Force.
  8. Important presidencies are being established with this particular piece of legislation, which is up for its final on Tuesday.
  9. We strongly request that you bring this back.
  10. You have the right to.
  11. It's major planning policy.
  12. You shouldn't be left out of the loop.
  13. There should not be a short circuit to not have you consider these items of major importance.
  14. The Brown Act allows you to direct staff to place the item on a future agenda.
  15. That is something you could do as action, which is appropriate at the time of Public Comment.
  16. I'm pleading.

President Alexander

  1. Linda, can we send a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking they send this for [our] comment?

Commission Secretary Avery

  1. It will go out over your signature.

Adjournment: 5:30 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, February 8, 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 10:00:23 PM