August 3, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 3, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight S. Alexander; Christina Olague; Michael J. Antonini, William L. Lee; Kathrin Moore; Hisashi Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Glenn Cabreros, Michael E. Smith, Aaron Starr, Michael Li, Craig Nikitas; Sara Vellve, Thomas Wang, Shaunn Mendrin, Isolde Wilson, 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. 2006.0673DD (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

70-72 NIDO AVENUE - east side between Vega and Turk Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 0970 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.01.5727, proposing to add a fourth story that is setback 27'-0 from the front building wall; add a 6'-0 x 6'-8 deck at the southeast (rear) corner of the second floor; alter window sizes and provide entry awning at the front of the building. The property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 30-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to August 10, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: None. The Discretionary Review request has been withdrawn. This matter is no longer before the Commission for consideration or action.

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. A vote on the minutes is different from a vote on a permit; the vote doesn't have the same adjudicative and due process implications.

Consideration of Adoption –
Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 20, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 23, 2006.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continue to first hearing in September (September 7, 2006)

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

ABSENT: Lee

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 Moore

I want to bring to the Commission's attention an article in the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday speaking about parking in San Francisco being in a tight spot.
I'm wondering if you all have thought about it.
It speaks about the supply and oversupply in certain parts of downtown and I'd like to bring that into our discussion as we look forward into looking at parking in general.
The question will come up in some of the things we will be discussing later.
Another thing is a memo you [Commission Secretary] sent to us regarding South of Market. This is something you sent me but it came in as an email from a citizen in the Bayshore asking why public hearings regarding that area were postponed.
Since I do not know the circumstance, I'd like to just ask for clarification.

Commission Secretary Avery

Just on the logistics of sending email.
As the public sends material to me for the Commission, it is my practice to always forward that to all commissioners so you can review it and be aware of what the public is saying and what their concerns are.
As to the questions this citizen is asking – it relates to planning matters and is under the jurisdiction of the Director and/or the Zoning Administrator.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

I'd be happy to answer why that has been delayed. There are some very good reasons for that.
Perhaps we could talk later.

Commissioner Olague

A couple of weeks ago I requested a list of some of the pipeline housing projects and I haven't received it yet.
I was just wondering if someone is working on that.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

Are you talking about things related to 2660 Harrison Street? I'm not quite sure of the specific request.

Commissioner Olague

It had to do when we were discussing the inclusionary housing ordinance and at least when it was discussed at the Board and there was some discussion around pipeline projects and how to interpret that and just some of the projects that were actually considered to be in the pipeline.
I just wanted to look at them and also the current zoning of those proposed projects and when the permits were actually requested.
That is the kind of information I wanted to look at.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

I think Dr. Ghosh and his staff is working on it. He is absent so I will talk to him next week.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

4. Director's Announcements

Zoning Administrator Badiner

I only have one item under Director's Report and it is in response to a request we heard under Public Comment last week about parking and how we are no longer approving garages over the counter on historic projects.
Then we heard from someone else that we shouldn't be doing that.
We will be having a meeting in a couple of weeks internally to discuss that. Make sure we have a consistent policy and after we do that we will report back to you on Department practice and whether we have changed in actuality.
I think Commissioner Antonini wanted a report on that and I wanted to let you know we haven't forgotten about it.

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

Dan Sider of Department Staff reported

The Doggie Diner Head Landmarking passed on first reading at the full Board 10 to 0 with Sandoval excused.
The Land Use Committee considered the trailing legislation on the Medical Cannabis Dispensary issue. If passed, this would lengthen the time needed for those out of compliance to comply.
That should not necessarily change our calendar as far as hearing those items in the future.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

No Board of Appeals report.
They do not meet until August 16^th.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

SPEAKERS:

David Weidermier

I wanted to ask again why there is no plan or schedule to address buildings without garages. There is no distinction made about location or corridor or districts; no prototype examples we have seen of Telegraph Hill, Nob Hill, or Russian Hill about parking automobiles.
Also policy without direction from Planning - if there isn't a parking policy setting review on how they are impacting the middle income housing, then there is a problem. I am very concerned about this issue.

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

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

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hestor

Re. 2121-2123 Leavenworth Street

Requesting continuance for one week
It's hard to get together 11 DR requestors who are also property owners.
We are trying to meet together with architects.

Andrew Junius

Re. 2121-2123 Leavenworth Street

Would really like to move forward today.
There are a lot of issues.

CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

6a. 2005.0089DDDDDDDDDDDE (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2121-2123 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side between Greenwich and Filbert Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0094 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.02.24.6183 proposing to demolish an existing four-story, two-unit building in 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 Demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 15, 2006)

Note: On June 15, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter by vote +6 –0, to require two meetings between the Project Sponsor and the neighborhood and for the Project Sponsor to secure and clean up around existing building. Commissioner W. Lee was absent. Public hearing will remain closed unless new information is introduced.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: New material has been introduced. Public hearing has been re-opened and the matter continued to August 10, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Olague, Lee, and Sugaya

EXCUSED: Moore

ABSENT: Alexander

6b. 2005.0387DDDDDDDDDDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2121-2123 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side between Greenwich and Filbert Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0094 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2005.02.24.6188 & 2005.02.24.6189 proposing to construct two, five-story, three-unit buildings in 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 as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 15, 2006)

Note:On June 15, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter by vote +6 –0, to require two meetings between the Project Sponsor and the neighborhood and for the Project Sponsor to secure and clean up around existing building. Commissioner W. Lee was absent. Public hearing will remain closed unless new information is introduced.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: New material has been introduced. Public hearing has been re-opened and the matter continued to August 10, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Olague, Lee, Sugaya

EXCUSED: Moore

ABSENT: Alexander

G. 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.

7. 2006.0326C (M. Smith: (415) 558-6322)

103-111 Sagamore Street - south side between Plymouth and Capitol Avenues Boulevards, Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 7147 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 710.83 to install a wireless telecommunications facility operated by Cingular Wireless, located in a NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-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 2 site as it is a co-location site. The proposal is to install six (6) panel antennas enclosed within two faux chimneys installed on the roof approximately 42.8-feet above grade. The seven (7) associated equipment cabinets would be installed in a storage room within the building in a lease area that measures 10.5-feet in width and 8.5-feet in length.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17287

8. 2006.0745C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

501 FELL STREET - south side between Buchanan and Laguna Streets; Lot 001, in Assessor's Block 0830 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 182 and 303 to allow a non-conforming use in a residential district to change from a Retail Grocery/Specialty Food Store, as defined in Planning Code Section 790.102, (d.b.a. Apollo Market) to a Small Self-Service Restaurant, as defined in Planning Code Section 790.91, (d.b.a. Apollo Café and Deli). The site is located in an RH-3 (Residential, House - 3 Family) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project consists of establishing an approximately 900 sq. ft. small self-service restaurant with approximately 25 seats at the ground floor of the subject building in a retail space that is currently occupied by a corner grocery store and deli.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17288

H. REGULAR CALENDAR

9a. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a shadow impact determination regarding the significance of net new shadow on Civic Center Plaza and Howard-Langton Mini Park caused by a proposal to (1) demolish an existing four- to seven-story apartment building, which contains 377 residential rental units (including 360 rent-controlled units), a ground-floor restaurant, and surface and below-grade parking for approximately 450 vehicles, and (2) construct three buildings ranging in height from 148 feet to 223 feet and containing approximately but no more than 1,900 residential rental units, approximately 91,878 square feet of usable open space, approximately 60,000 square feet of commercial space, and a garage with up to 1,450 parking spaces (1,200 residential and 250 commercial). The project site is within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 120-X, 150-X, and 240-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary recommendation: Determine that the net new shadow on Civic Center Plaza and Howard-Langton Mini Park is not adverse

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Bernardo, representing Project Sponsor

We have been working on this project for about four years with the Planning Department. The Sponsor and I am pleased to be back here today to present the project and its evolution so that maybe we can take you into the mind of the architect and the planners as we come with a proposal that you are going to see here today.
I'd like to begin first with the origins of this project and its location. As you can see from the image on the screen where you see the label, it sits at the intersection of Market and 8^th Streets and all the way to Mission Street is the current proposed site.
For those in the audience who may not be familiar, it is on Market Street directly across from the Orpheum Building, a very well known corridor.
The site is currently occupied by the original motel building or hotel building that existed on the site, a horizontal low rise building that is largely surrounded by parking lots.
As you can see, there is an anomaly on the site in the fact that Stevenson does not actually traverse that parcel. When the hotel was built, Stevenson must have been vacated and the parcel was consolidated all the way across.
You will see how we respond to that unusual circumstance in the City structure.
The existing building occupies most of the length of the site along 8^th.
What you can see along the top of the page is how Stevenson actually dead-ends abruptly with no termination cul-de-sac or any other means of return.
The site receives the sun from the South and of course east and west at certain time of the day. And we just show you where the shadows are cast internally with the site.
The diagram that is now on the screen is the shadow plan that actually cuts through the site that is truly the true limiting factor, because it really dominates above the zoning heights that are permitted on the site.
It becomes really the deciding factor in the massing of the building. The shadow ordinance requires this and, as you can see, there is a high point on Mission Street that cascades gently along the corner to 8^th and along Market and eventually to the low corner of Market and 8^th, which becomes the lowest point of the property.
But in fact, it's sort of coincidental, it sort of fits into the City texture and the fact that buildings along Market are above the height that the shadow ordinance provides and buildings along Mission, they are evolving; they are quite a bit taller.
So, this takes us to the actual site plan of this project and you can see what we are doing fundamentally here, we are trying to reestablish the City grid and reestablish some of the traffic patterns in a coherent way.
The axis of Stevenson is reinstated with a pedestrian promenade that takes one directly across the site.
What we are actually recreating here is the two original sites with a larger site along Market and a narrower site along Mission.
The dead end is extended along the site and makes a regular turn and exits along Mission far enough from the corner so it is a logical intersection at the termination of what Stevenson's is today, which is essentially a service drive.
[He continued to use his power point slide presentation to describe the existing site and proposed project.]

Randy Shaw – Director of Tenderloin Housing

Three years ago when we heard about the project that was planned to demolished at Trinity Plaza, it led to great concern among the tenants and groups like ours because we were going to lose 360 units of rent controlled housing.
In response to that threat, I asked Supervisor Chris Daly to introduce legislation to prevent the demolition citywide.
Early in December we were planning to re-circulate a special election for June 2005.
The end result was that I got a call from Jack Davis, representing Angelo Sangiacomo, who said we've been fighting so long, what if we save all your rent-controlled housing?
Well, keep in mind nowhere in the history of California, I don't believe anywhere in the history of America, has anyone built new housing under rent control.
They might have build it under Federal, but not under rent control.
Of course, State law forbids rent control in new housing.
Angelo was suggesting that he would agree voluntarily with a deed restriction for rent control and that all housing would be replaced on site and none of our tenants in the building would be displaced because the minute the building was ready they would move right over.
In fact in a subsequent agreement negotiated by Supervisor Daly, the builders are going to pay for the move and the tenants can take all their furniture to the new place as well.
That assurance made a big difference.
It looked like we could work out something that would be that rare opportunity for people who have been historic adversaries to come together.
After all we've said about him [Mr. Sangiacomo], I'm willing to step forward and make peace.
If we did the 15% affordable, we would end up with 275 affordable units in this project.
Instead we are getting 350 rent controlled units.
When you say you could work out a better deal, how come no better deal has ever come?
Who could afford to build rent controlled? Where would they get financing?
The truth is if you do not have the wealth of Angelo Sangiacomo, this project wouldn't happen.
There is no public money in this.
Trinity is giving up 200 commercial parking spaces it already has. Remember when you take away parking spots from revenue it is already getting, that means that you are taking millions of dollars out of the project.
On inclusionary – we could have given up rent controlled units and gotten more affordable units.
The tenants opted for more rent control rather than have more affordable units.

Jim Ruben

We have been working with Angelo Sangiacomo and the City to try to get this before you.
I get to deal with the un-sexy parts of this project, the open issues that Craig Nikitas raised and didn't close up.
I am going to try to address those in some kind of orderly fashion.
The first that comes to mind and that Randy Shaw mentioned to you is the parking issue.
Throughout the discussions with the City, this was collaboration between the City, the tenants and the project sponsor.
We were working on a development agreement throughout the project.
We had the support of the City for 250 commercial spaces, that's why the development agreement was drafted that way. That's why all the documents originally were drafted that way. That's why you were shown 250 commercial spaces below grade for the commercial, for the 60,000 square feet that were going to be producing.
What happened is because of the long period of time it took to get before you, the C-3 parking legislation passed you and then passed the Board of Supervisors so we are now faced with that C-3 parking.
Here is what we are doing though. Currently at that site right now there are 450 spaces being used regularly. I mean they are sold out.
We are going to take away those 450 spaces and replace them with 250 spaces, a reduction of 200 while at the same time the Federal Building on the same block is going to be adding 2800 employees with zero parking, we're adding 60,000 sq. ft. - actually a net of 48,000 because we're eliminating that restaurant there - but we're adding 60,000 square feet of commercial space that needs parking and won't have any.
We're under parked in my view. If you check the Planning Guidelines on residential, we're producing 1900 units with 1200 spaces.
So, it seems to me to be a fair compromise to allow us to continue to proceed with the 250 spaces that we anticipated until 3 weeks ago.
Similarly, there was an issue about stackers on the 12 spaces.
All of our parking is below grade. We don't have the space on the floor to floor to put stackers. We would respectfully request that we not be required to do that.
12% affordable [in addition to the rent controlled] was the understanding of the parties – the tenants and Angelo Sangiacomo.
What happened? Again because of the long period of time a new BMR was passed. It is not effective until the Mayor signs it, but at some point he will.
We talked with Chris Daly last week and it was not their intent to capture Trinity.
There was some discussion about changing the definition of the existing tenant. We have agreed to that. We agreed that an existing tenant will be anybody at Trinity Plaza with a lease on the day of the first Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
There was another open issue on the variances that Craig mentioned – we'll agree.
Give us the parking and the maps.
There is another issue. Somebody is suggesting that the north-south pathway between Mission and Stevenson through the private open space be open to the public.
We can't agree to that and hope you won't make us agree to it.
We have a great big public plaza area. It's the way it was designed. We expect the building to be mapped with restrictions subject to City Attorney review.
We are going to waive the Ellis Act, waive restrictions. There is no way that will be sold as condominiums.
[His time ran out.]

Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City

We have some concerns about this project that we would like to see resolved before it's allowed to go forward.
We do support the contentions in Supervisor Maxwell's letter and would ask you to consider those.
I am going to use most of 3 minutes here to talk about transportation and urban design issues.
As we are located in Mid-Market, I am a frequent walker and cyclist in Mid-Market and have some big concerns about this project.
First of all, we do support the staff recommendation that the short-term parking be eliminated.
There are several hundred parking spaces that are going in next-door that will be short-term and I think you read the article in the Chronicle on Monday. It mentioned that there are hundreds of potential short-term parking spaces in the C-3 area now.
They are being leased out in short-term garages but if the demand for short-term parking were to increase, they would go back. The converse is also true.
If you glut an area with parking spaces, they will go back to leased spaces and that will have an effect on walking and cycling.
We understand some accommodations were made not to shadow 1160 Mission, but we are very concerned about how this project treats the public realm; what it does to Market Street; what it does to Mission Street; and what it does to 8^th Street.
Market Street in particular is San Francisco's main street. Probably the most important street in terms of urban design in the city. We feel the additional height, these kind of masses – slab-like structures pushed up against Mission are going to have bad effects in terms of wind, in terms of urban design, in terms of shadow on a street that has been devastated by a series of bad building on Market.
We would very much like to see a public right of way along that side.
We applaud them for bringing Mission Street all the way through. But you can see if that public right of way was connected between Stevenson, we would get away from that frequent of a giant wall of building on the south side of Market.

Jazzie Collins, South of Market Community Action Network and tenant in the South of Market area.

I live two blocks away from the housing site.
If you look down out 8^th Street, you see there are four lanes of traffic going southbound on 8^th Street.
When the tenants come out of the current parking lot, they have to look north toward the public library and high in order to find a way to come out.
You have pedestrian crossings there every day.
To have 1,450 additional cars come through is endangering to the pedestrians that live in that neighborhood and also endangering the motorists that are pulling out against on-coming traffic.
We have to keep in mind there are also three freeways that run in that neighborhood going southbound. Yu have 80, 101 and 280.
My suggestion is to put this off and continue it for another month to get the entire community's participation and also to consider safety measures that are involved.

Tom Hart

We have the Orpheum Theater building right across the street from this project. It's a very active theater.
It's the theater that we use to display the most shows with and it really is very dependent on a lot of things.
The BART station access is right there. It's part of the Civic Center fabric. It also depends on close parking availability in the immediate environment.
Most of our shows are at night with 8:00 starts. And we of course do our marketing to groups and individuals not only in this city but also in the outlying areas.
I know we have many repeat customers that come from congregate living homes outside the area. They come in vans as well as automobiles.
We really urge the commission to take a positive action in requiring the 250 spots.
We are actually very concerned that the amount of parking available to the public is dropping from 450 down to 250.
My hat's off to Mr. Sangiacomo. Like Mr. Shaw, I don't understand how he's doing it but he's doing it and I think it is a great commitment to the city and especially to this mid-Market area.
I sit on the Mid-Market PAC and work with many of the people here today trying to bring along this area to be an arts and entertainment district.
Truly if we are going to do that, I think we do need adequate available parking in the area to service the customers that come not only from outside the city but also from within the city and give choices to others to either take public transit or private transportation.

Ken Werner, Trinity Plaza Tenants Association

I stand before you in complete confidence that this is going to be a great project.
We're going to see the revitalization of the Mid-Market area.
Just in one project alone, the visual design that Bernardo has created for us is just absolutely stunning.
With the other new building going up at 10^th and Mission, we are going to have two structures in the mid-Market area that are going to draw attention to creating a new neighborhood in the mid-Market area.
I don't think we need Redevelopment coming and sticking their fingers in this at this point.
Mid-Market is coming along just fine.
We are thrilled that Mr. Sangiacomo has decided upon following a course of creating this wonderful new neighborhood in the heart of Civic Center.

Angelica Cabande, South of Market Network

I am here to ask you to accept Sup. Maxwell's letter today.
Trinity Plaza should [not] be exempt from the inclusionary housing law.
The law was fought by a different organization in San Francisco to ensure affordable housing for the people in greater San Francisco, so why should they be exempted from that?
Also if Trinity isn't planning to sell the buildings then why have a condo mapping? What is the purpose of that?
I say not to condo mapping and we ask you to not move this forward until the issues that were raised earlier are actually taken into account.
Community groups also need to have a greater time to actually read through the development agreement and see if this build out is going to really benefit not only the South of Market but the greater San Francisco.
We already have a lot of pedestrian safety issues.
We don't need any more parking and if this is really a transit friendly city, then we need to encourage visitors to use the transit. They should be using BART.

Tim Dunn, South of Market Community Coalition

I am very concerned about the project as is.
I think there are a number of things that have already been cited, the parking being one, of course.
This is the most transit-rich location in the City. An additional 400 cars will slow down MUNI that it is facing on Mission Street and Market Street. It's a threat to pedestrians in the neighborhood.
It's incomprehensible that this would be exempt from the inclusionary housing zoning laws.
The rent-controlled units should not be substituted.
Every time the rent controlled units become vacant they will go up to 100% market rate. So it is really important that they get full inclusionary units, which are deed restricted to particular levels of area median income.
Finally, I concur with Tom Radulovich. I don't think the urban design issues have been explored closely enough.
Wind on Market is very serious in terms of the pedestrian experience.
Until these issues are fully addressed, I think it is critical that this is continued.

Sam Dodge

This is truly the product of people power.
I think of my own involvement with Trinity residents has been over three years.
We met every Wednesday night and I'll tell you personally being part of the prayer circle – and I'm not normally a religious person – but a lot of spirit within the building and the core of the group all met and prayed for strength for themselves and the outcome of the struggle and that is really how I feel we got to where we are today.
To get to this point was no small task. It's huge where we are now.
The struggle was monumental and it was heroic but the health tolls that it takes on people, year after year; worry about your own home and your own future – it really wears on people.
Checking with our own leaders, they've asked me to come and represent their views that this move forward and remind you to look at the big picture – that the forest not be lost for the trees.
I look forward to your input but I hope in the end they are able to take another step in the journey and get something that the tenants can rest their hat on and move on to other parts of life beyond this struggle.
I certainly hope we can do that tonight and I look forward to this project as well – living and working in the Tenderloin.
I think this is going to make an improvement to the Market Street area and the preservation to the community has just been invaluable.

Chris Durazo

I think that one the most illuminating things out of that study process is the fact it's unfeasible to do rental housing in San Francisco.
This is why we're urgently supporting not having condo mapping on this site. Because this is such an important resource for the City, to the further of San Francisco right now.
You should not give it up this soon.
I think I am in agreement to discuss these issues further because this is a much bigger project than we started out with three years ago.

Johanna Walozac

I live half a block away from Trinity Plaza and I'd like to reiterate some points made by earlier speakers about the design of the buildings and pedestrian safety such as I walk around the neighborhood all the time, obviously, and I am also a cyclist.
I am concerned about the increase in parking and feel that if there is a problem with transportation and if we feel that there is a need to increase parking spaces that we really need to reconsider that and instead look at public transit and try to make it more efficient and affordable to more people and encourage more people to use it.
I am also concerned about the design of the building and the wind that would be created.

Sally Ramon, Tenant of Trinity Plaza

I would like to thank some of the people and organizations that helped us to get through this.
Every since I was very small, I always had caped crusaders that were my heroes.
Right now I'm looking for a cape large enough to fit Chris Daly. Thank you very much.

Jim Salinas, Carpenters Local 22.

I think it's a great agreement, I think everybody should be excited.
You get to make the decision this evening and benefit many people.
So here we are again with this great opportunity to bring so many great benefits to folks, including those jobs that are going to be coming as a result of the fact that Mr. Sangiacomo has chosen or see fit to choose a great San Francisco headquarter company called Cannon.
I am always delighted to be here because it means great apprenticeship opportunities.
This is a great design by a great architect. It's a great agreement, great contractor, and now you have the ability to make a great decision.

April Generation

I am here to discuss broader concerns around the Trinity Plaza Development.
I want to commend Mr. Sangiacomo for the movement that's been made protecting the tenants around Trinity Plaza, and the tenant's ability to move back into the new development in rent controlled units.
I am asking you to be thoughtful about the remaining planning issues that this project brings up and its relationship not just to the Mid-Market area but the broader South of Market and the whole of San Francisco.
We have a transit first policy in the city and this is a transit rich area. 250 commercial parking spaces is not needed at this particular site. There is plenty of transit available to this site.
Although the rent controlled units are very important, we want to introduce a variety of housing opportunities for the various ranges of income in the city and affordable rental housing for the work force is an important part of that process.
We want to ask you to support inclusionary housing at this site.
We also want you to look at the design issues raised by Mr. Radulovich. Really look at the relationship between Mission and Market.
We hope you will be able to address these concerns in the near future.

ACTION: Determined made that the shadow is not adverse

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

NAYES: Moore

MOTION: 17290

9b. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

Preliminary recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00PM on March 15, 2006.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a,

ACTION: EIR certified

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

MOTION: 17291

9c. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Adoption of CEQA findings related to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project described in Item 9a.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the CEQA findings

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Adopted as modified: delete part of the sentence that would read & the proposed project must comply with the city's inclusionary affordable housing program based on the number of units in the project remaining after & , ~~as it exists on the date the existing ordinance with the development agreement becomes effective~~, &

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

MOTION: 17292

9d. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a General Plan amendment related to the project described in Item 9a. The General Plan amendment consists of reclassifying the height and bulk districts for the project site as shown on Map 5 – Proposed Height and Bulk Districts and referred to in Policy 13.1 of the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan, from 120-X, 150-X and 240-S to 160-X, 180-X and 240-S.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved

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

RESOLUTION: 17293

9e. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for zoning map amendments related to the project described in Item 9a. The zoning map amendments consist of (1) reclassifying the height and bulk districts for the project site shown on Map 1H of the Zoning Maps from 120-X, 150-X, and 240-S to 160-X, 180-X, and 240-S and (2) adding the Trinity Plaza Special Use District to Map 1SU of the Zoning Maps.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved as amended: regarding inclusionary housing on page 3, item 8C – strike the language that says ~~equal to that required in the development agreement~~

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

RESOLUTION: 17294

9f. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a Planning Code text amendment related to the project described in Item 9a. The Planning Code text amendment consists of adding Section 249.34 to the Planning Code to create the Trinity Plaza Special Use District. The specific provisions of the Trinity Plaza Special Use District will (a) eliminate floor area ratio limits, maximum dwelling unit density limits, and sunlight access to public sidewalk requirements, and (b) allow exceptions from dwelling unit exposure requirements through the process outlined in Section 309 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved as amended: regarding inclusionary housing on page 3, item 8C – strike the language that says ~~equal to that required in the development agreement~~

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

RESOLUTION: 17295

9g. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a Section 309 Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions. See Item 9a for a project description. The project requires setback, rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, wind, parking, loading, and bulk exceptions pursuant to Section 309(a).

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a.

MOTION: To approve as modified: inclusionary housing to a straight 12 percent (making sure this language is consistent with the language the Commission adopted in previous resolutions); eliminate a need for space requirement; allow 250 [parking] spaces; modify the north/south pass way from Stevenson to Mission to be open to the public; staff is to continue working with the developer and architect on design and window treatment ad other concerns voiced.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini and Lee

NAYES: Moore, Olague and Sugaya

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Approved the above motion with the additional modifications: on page 4, finding #7 – or up it to a total of 250 spaces for replacement parking spaces if contained within the Development Agreement as ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors; strike the last sentence of the next paragraph; add on page 12 under Parking, M, if the Development Agreement ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors approves up to 250 parking spaces, this would not be subject to the full area ration' insert on page 27, under Conditions of Approval, item #1, on the fourth line that starts Residential Parking Spaces and Accessory Commercial Parking – and potentially replacement parking if approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Development Agreement up to 250 parking spaces.

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

MOTION: 17296

9h. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for conditional use authorization to (1) demolish a residential use in a C-3 District and (2) provide a new curb cut and driveway on a transit-preferential street for the project described in Item 9a.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved as amended: Inclusionary Housing language is consistent with language the Commission adopted on prior resolutions; up to 250 parking spaces total if approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Development Agreement; allow staff the ability to do conformity throughout the motions to make sure nothing has been missed and this doesn't have to come back because something was missed.

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

ABSENT: Moore

MOTION: 17297

9i. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for approval of a development agreement between Trinity Properties, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco related to the project described in Item 9a.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved as amended: The Commission has reviewed the proposals put forward by Supervisor Maxwell, but for lack of time they are rejecting them and deferring them to the Board of Supervisors except in-as-much as they conform with the proposal already as written.; condo mapping is allowed for building A; whatever number of commercial spaces are approved in this project, the number of parking spaces allowed at any given time ought to be proportional to the amount of retail or commercial space in the project; the definition of existing tenant is a person residing at Trinity Plaza with a valid lease on the date the developer obtains a certificate for final occupancy for building A, including all replacement units; affordability requirement is 12%; the development discusses the change in the number of units and the developer has acceded to the city's request that that threshold be set at 10%.

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

MOTION: 17298

10. 2006.0857ET (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Planning Code in order to allow certain nonconforming uses to seek Café Tables and Chairs' permits. The proposed Ordinance would amend Planning Code Article 1.8 in order to allow [1] LCU's (Limited Commercial Uses) and [2] certain NCU's (nonconforming uses) to seek permits which could authorize them to place tables and chairs on public sidewalks. Presently, the Planning Code subjects these uses to restrictions and prohibitions. The proposal would not affect existing Municipal Code provisions relating to the Department of Public Works' (DPW) ability to evaluate and issue annual Café Tables and Chairs' permits when certain accessibility criteria are met and when a public notification process has been completed. These provisions allow any such permit to be the subject of a DPW public hearing, the outcome of which may be appealed to the Board of Appeals. The proposed Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi, as part of Board of Supervisors File Number 061069.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Resolution

SPEAKERS:

Supervisor Mirkarimi

Commissioners, good afternoon.
I think overall the message is loud and clear.
I think that this is an opportunity for us to update the code that needs updating and to provide a process for enhancing the street experience where appropriate.
I would like to include awnings as part of this process as well so we are catching this more thoroughly up front.
Like the MCD laws, where we have some corrections along the way, we want to do this thoroughly.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION: 17289

11. 2005.0659C (T. WANG (415) 558-6335)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS:
Debra Stein, GCS Strategies

I have the honor to represent the People's Republic of China.
We are asking an addition to the Consul General's home at 85 St. Elmo Street in order to provide staff bedrooms and staff bathrooms, which are not currently possible.
Because this property is so large, it calls for a PUD approval through the Conditional Use.
At the Commission's request, architect Li Aison can make a detailed presentation about the design. But since it's been in your packets, this is the fifth time this item has been calendared, we thought we would go to some of the issues that have really been of concern to the neighbors.
As Mr. Badiner says, this is a unique property. It is a little under 9/10 of an acre.
Under the code it could be subdivided into individual lots but the People's Republic of China, who really want to meet the Consul General's needs, owns it. It really does not meet China's needs right now.
This enormous property requires 5 full-time staff and right now there is only one bedroom.
More importantly, security requirements make it necessary for China to host very high-level dignitaries in a quiet and secure setting.
There have been continuous negotiations and discussions with neighbors since this item was first calendared with you in April.
They covered a range of issues, potentially exploring whether or not it was possible to put these bedrooms inside the house by building on top or excavating the foundation or whether there's potential to put this elsewhere on the property. There was a suggestion perhaps cutting down the mature trees to the right of the house and building it up, towards the street; if it is in the rear yard how to make it further away, even from neighbors; smaller tree preservation; landscaping; construction usage; a full range of good neighbor issues. And the agreement I think produces an even better building for neighbors that can meet China's needs.
It basically takes this V-shaped building and rotates it to eliminate that central courtyard and put it away from neighbors.
It involves substantial set backs ranging from 18 feet to 20 feet and a 10-foot set back from the rear. A notch in the southwest corner creates a 29-foot set back from the side yard.
78 percent of the property will remain as open space.
Every mature tree over 24 inches will be preserved except for one.
There will be a landscape architect will be consulted to do a site-specific site plan and a variety of good neighbor construction measures have been agreed to. Including no construction on Saturday and Sunday and restricted hours of construction.
With this residential addition, St. Elmo will be able to meet the People's Republic of China's needs for the Consul General.
This is not to be used for commercial purposes like a boarding house or hotel or condos.
Although this is an RH-1 (D), a variety of uses are allowed with a conditional use.
The People's Republic of China has voluntarily agreed to a condition that as long as China owns the property, this will only be used for a single family home.
In conclusion, I want to thank those neighbors that have worked so hard for so many months to create a project that would meet China's needs.
They have been honest and honorable and respectful and extremely firm about protecting neighbor's interest.
I want to apologize to neighbors who haven't been able to be part of this and the homeowner's association for fighting to the very last minute to make sure the neighbors' interests was protected.
The People's Republic of China looks forward to being a continuing part of this neighborhood and this City and respectfully requests the Planning Commission approve the revised plans and additions for this residential addition.

Susan Zurnaga, President of the Monterey Heights Association

We have been working for months in this process.
We feel the current compromise both in plan and conditions meets the majority of the needs of the neighborhood and we support the approval of the revised plans and conditions of the project.

Joseph Mocklin

I am the property owner at 125 St. Elmo Way.
After months of negotiation I feel we have negotiated the best possible resolution we can have and I am in support of the new project.

Mark Lynch

My family lives at 135 St. Elmo Way.
Our rear yard adjoins the corner of St. Elmo where the proposed addition will be built.
It will be visible from our home including the rear of our balcony.
We have been in discussion about this project since the Consul General first contacted the neighbors in March of 2004.
We expressed our concerns about the size and location of that addition since that time on.
I have continued to be concerned about the addition as well as the broader concerns of the neighborhood.
In the course of our negotiations the addition has been moved away from the property line of all the neighbors and has been made more compact.
In my opinion, there is no concern about the architecture. It is excellent.
The Consul General has agreed to a number of conditions that will mitigate the structure of the neighborhood and I am satisfied that the revised structure before you represents the best resolution for everyone concerned.
I would like to thank the Consul General for his efforts and patience in coming to this resolution and we look forward to being good neighbors for many years.

Bob McCarthy

I am here not to speak as a paid advocate but to speak as a member of the faculty. San Francisco and the United States really truly serves as an inspiration for the not cultural revolution, but the cultural evolution that is now going on in the People's Republic.
They look to the United States as a beacon of tolerance and diversity. A place that welcomes them. A place of peace and prosperity. And they mostly see the United States through the lens of San Francisco.
San Francisco has had the longest standing city relationship of any American city other that Washington, DC, through its friendship with Shanghai.
I will tell you if you have had the pleasure and privilege of going to China you feel the extraordinary pleasure from everyone there. And if you get to participate in a educational or cultural exchange, you realize much of that comes from us.
Today is quite a sentimental moment in San Francisco's history with both the Asian Community and San Francisco Community and the Consul General. It's a rare opportunity.
I have had the opportunity of functioning as head of a Department as well as running a Commission and I can tell you in your four years here you will have lots of opportunities to improve people's lives on an individual basis, on a neighborhood basis, but this is an opportunity for you to make a worldwide impact on the consular core - all of which are watching. And today is your opportunity. So when you look back sometime 20 or 30 years from now as I look back on my experience 20 or 30 years ago, and you decide what are the things I most remember, I would hope you would think there was a day when I was asked to make a decision that was listened to by all the Consulates in San Francisco; by governments around the world; and it was my chance to confirm San Francisco's historic commitment to the Consular Core, to the people and countries they represent; and specifically to San Francisco and its Asian Community.
Some day we will elect an Asian-American Mayor and I hope the predecessor of that Mayor some day when he or she wins that election, that they will say today we are all Asian-Americans.

Mark Jordan

I live at 25 St. Elmo Way, two houses down from the Consul General.
I am a Board member of the Monterey Heights Homeowner's Association.
I just wanted to let you know that I was not consulted about the apparent compromise that was agreed to with Consul representatives.
The conditions of approval do not adequately address the points raised on June 1, as proposed by the General Consul.
The two treaties concerning diplomatic immunity are contradictory and we have yet to receive an opinion from the City Attorney's Office that we have requested.
As an example, during these last winter storms I was out in the rain at 3:00 a.m. with a representative from PG&E trying to assess the problem.
Luck of the draw, he wasn't aware of Paragraph 31 of the Geneva Convention. Nor was I, and he refused to go on to the property to assess the problem.
An agreement in writing about emergency access would be very helpful to us.
My partner and I only received the revised plans for the residence last night at 9: 15 p.m. with the understanding they would be submitted to the Planning Commission this morning, contrary to the Commission's notice requirements.
More important, many of us who have contributed thousands of dollars to the legal defense fund and many of the homeowners at Monterey Heights have not seen or approve the compromise.
I don't think that we as neighbors have been given enough time to review the plans and address the proposed conditions.

Kenall Patton

I live two doors down from the Consul General,
We have resided there for seven years.
I want to take you back nearly five years. On the morning of November 24, 2001, our 11-room also unique home on St. Elmo nearly burnt to the ground because we had electrical flames and fires coming down the power lines from the Consul General's residence.
We had electrical fire in the cable television system in the basement of our home.
PG&E was not given access to the Consul General's property and when we finally sat down with PG & E and asked what the problem was they said there was a continual problem with the Consul General not maintaining the trees on their property and not providing access for safety issues to the property.
I am here today to oppose the Consult General's application on one and only one ground and that is public safety.
You should have in your files a copy of the letter that I sent to the Public Utilities Commission on November 27, 2001.
I provided a copy of this to Mr. Tom Wang on May 3^rd.
I also provided a copy to our Supervisor, Sean Elsbernd, and have discussed this with him.
This was a letter written more than four and a half years ago.
This was an incident that occurred more than four and a half years ago and I think it's acknowledgement of the fact we have not had excellent neighbor relations with the Consul General as a resident in our beautiful neighborhood.
Our neighbors met continually throughout the middle of May and at those neighborhood meetings, neighborhood safety was of prime importance.
The notice of special restriction, which the attorney's of the Association and other neighbors who contributed to the fund produced that was given to Debra Stein on June 1, read in pertinent part: In case of an emergency involving a potential immediate health and safety impact, all public agencies necessary to respond to the emergency shall be provided with immediate and unrestricted access.
This is what my neighbors and I require to be in the conditions of approval of this conditional use permit.
The Chinese, for whatever reason, have continually rejected this essential requirement as a condition of approval.
We understand that the Chinese Government is claiming diplomatic immunity.
I've been a practicing attorney fro 26 years in this City.
I don't believe that they have diplomatic immunity when it comes to health and safety issues with respect to their personal residence.
On behalf of the affected homeowners, and by that I mean the homeowners - those of us who live closest, I request that you include this as a condition.

Tom Driscoll

I live at 460 Yerba Buena across from the Consul General's property.
My objection, really as with Mr. Patton's and Mr. Jordan's, relates to this health and safety issue.
We are one of the last parts of the City that has remnants of the Sutro forest planted in the late 1880's.
We have massive pine and cypress trees.
They are mature and healthy, but with the kind of windstorms we get, branches will come down and some of them are 25 feet long, eight inches in diameter, and they will knock out power.
We have had repeated outages caused not only by their trees but our trees.
It's a problem that needs to be addressed. We have had power outages that have lasted as long as 48 hrs. Because of these situations access to any one of our properties is key in order to take care of these problems. So, we think that's very important.
On the subject of the diplomatic immunity, nobody is suggesting that the Consul General should waive all diplomatic or consular immunity they are entitled to under their treaties.
The Consul can by virtue of the treaty waive certain conditions and all we are asking is the language that Mr. Patton has suggested, that in cases of emergency access be granted to the public agencies and utilities that are necessary to protect the public health and safety.

Gloria Bernstein

I live at 116 St. Elmo Way.
As a Monterey Heights homeowner, I as well as my neighbors seek to preserve the character of Monterey Heights and the neighborhood.
It's a character composed of single-family detached homes in which all homeowners and residents are bound by the same code, guidelines, covenants, conditions and restrictions of zoning and building.
It is a relief of many of the homeowners that, in fact, the residence is not avoiding issues.
When we found out that the plans had been submitted to the Commission, immediately many of us contacted Tom Wang and he logged 21 phone oppositions. There were 30 letters of opposition also written.
We had petitions signed by 77 neighbors against this addition.
The West of Twin Peaks Central Council joined us, which is an umbrella organization representing 16 homeowner associations and 90,000 residents.
All of us remain opposed to the plan as it is currently proposed and we ask you to consider the feelings of the neighborhood when you make your decision.

Peter Schweikardt

I'm glad to have this opportunity to share some of my concerns and some of the concerns that have been passed to me by my neighbors.
But first, actually I'd just like to reflect briefly on the representation as to how the process has gone.
I've heard some representations about the history of it, the involvement of the neighbors, the openness and so forth, which contrast quite sharply with what I have experienced.
We did have several meetings with the Consul General starting over two years ago. And there were subsequent meetings. We always found that our concerns were not met in any way.
The current size, for example, the scope of the project I believe is essentially the same or perhaps even larger than the first proposal.
They have simply, I think they have wanted to tell you that they met with us this number of times, as thought this was being flexible and being open and helpful and cooperative and neighborly when in fact it was not.
In addition, I also want to echo a remark that while perhaps there were meetings going on between the constant continuances, I was never asked to be part of any of them.
I live at 168 St. Elmo, which is almost across the street from the Consul General's residence. So to me it was a series of continuances followed by deafening silence from the proposers of this project. And they are now representing it to you in a different way.
I ask you please to consider some of this from what others of us might have experienced.
We live in a neighborhood that is zoned for single-family dwellings.
It's also governed by CC and R's, which have over time, I think, maintained a very pleasant residential environment.
We believe that this current proposal – by the way, it's an addition.
Not being a lawyer, I'm not that good at understanding some of these words, but to me an addition perhaps is something physically attached to something else. That is not the case.
It is a huge apartment complex that is being added at the other side of the property, not contiguous with the existing property.
We are concerned about the fact that it will become more convenient to hold more and more official consular functions if there are visitors on site.
We're concerned apart from the lack of access as a security and safety measure that it would make it impossible for any agreement that might be made here to be enforced. In other words, the City would not be able to verify compliance with any agreements that have been made in connection with this proposal.

David Bisho, President of the Twin Peaks Central Council

We represent 16 neighborhoods of the City's western neighborhoods.
I have been involved with Twin Peaks for 8 ½ years and I have to say this situation is the most improper thing I have even been involved with.
What they are suggesting is against the CC & R's signed by the owners of every property on St. Elmo Way.
It's also against the rules for RH-1 single family. It is absolutely against the use of a single family home.
No plans have been submitted to anyone including West of Twin Peaks. We don't have what we're approving here or not approving.
Half the board members are in favor of it because they are afraid.
Frankly, if they don't approve it they are going to be screwed and that's improper. It is just plain wrong.
The rest of them are against it and are here to tell you. And the worst thing is that the Planning Department has been helping them with it.
West of Twin Peaks is unanimously against it. And I just want to add that I am in the export business. And for the last 32 years, most of the people we deal with are Chinese all over the Fast East. And I have to say, generally speaking, they are the group in the world to deal with. A deal is a deal and I am very surprised with this.
I hope you disapprove the project and I hope the project sponsors withdrawn their request.

Jeremy Lieberman

I live at 428 Yerba Buena Avenue.
I share about 85 feet of back yard with St. Elmo.
I agree with all the things brought up by my fellow neighbors in opposition, but I want to speak about one serious problem that hasn't been addressed yet and that is there are serious inaccuracies in the plans that are proposed.
The design of the home does not show there was a large addition built in the 90's by the current owners, which, from my best estimates, is about a 1000 to 1250 sq. ft.
I don't know because I'm not allowed on the property.
The stated square footage of the home, the amount of rear yard open space that's currently available and being consumed in the amount of living space reported, does not reflect what I see on these plans.
I have architectural drawings of the space, which have been sent to the Department of Building Inspection. They have been forwarded apparently to the City Attorney by Building Inspection and to the Planning Department.
I don't know if you all have them, but it shows this space and it describes an apartment with a large bedroom, sitting room, tearoom that appears to me to extend beyond the rear set back.
The plans that have been submitted that show where the rear set back line is does not show this addition on it.
Four or five neighbors have filed formal complaints with DBI. It was investigated, assigned to an investigator. He was not able to get access to the property.
This complaint was filed in May, so it's been 3 months they have been continuously denied access to inspect the property.
There are no permits on record anywhere. This was confirmed by the Planning Department. And to our knowledge, no one has ever inspected whether this property is – this addition is safe or not.
Senior officials at the Department of Building Inspection told me that they have tried to work with the City Attorney's Office to meet with counsel for the Consul and obtain access, but they have, as of yesterday, been denied any access to the property.
I believe that our complaint about this structure is valid and deserves investigation.
Again, I am most concerned about the safety of my property.
My children play in the back yard right next to where this addition comes out to.
I was dismayed to learn that when neighbors met with Mr. Macris that he told them that this complaint would have no bearing on the approval or not of this project and as he specifically quoted, he said this complaint was going nowhere.
This is exactly the opposite of what Building Inspection told me, that no new permits would be granted until all complaints are investigated.

Note: Following a motion to continue and prior to the action, the Chair recognized a member of the State Department, Mr. Steve Candy.

I am the acting regional Director of the U. S. State Department Office for Missions here in San Francisco.
We are a regional office that covers 11 states; two of them are half of California and half of Nevada.
Our responsibilities are to work with the consulates here. To be liaison between the consulates and the U. S. State Department back in Washington, DC.
I'm not here to put pressure on anyone, but I do want to add one aspect that hasn't been discussed up to this point.
First and foremost, as you've heard, any consulate before they do anything like this has to first come to the U.S. State Department to ask for permission to do it.
We have the right to refuse if we feel that's necessary.
We have on occasion refused requests for purchases of property, for additions to property, and other steps that have been proposed in terms of property.
That is our right under both the Vienna Convention and Consular Convention.
It is also our right under our agreement with the People's Republic of China.
We received the proposal in 2003 for this addition from the People's Republic of China.
We carefully vetted it and it was approved and we issued in December 2003, the notification by diplomatic note to the People's Republic of China the procedures and requirements of the City of San Francisco.
This is also covered in our bilateral consular convention.
One of the reasons that we look at these closely and one of the reasons that we approve many of them is the issue of reciprocity.
We have in China our embassy.
We have four Consulates General in China itself.
And we also have a Consulate General in Hong Kong.
Those Consulates General and their staff are of key concern to us.
We have on-going a new project for our embassy in Beijing and they are doing one in Washington.
In addition, they are doing a building project for residences in New York City.
Our feeling, the State Department's position is that based on the issues of reciprocity, based on the good faith efforts by the People's Republic of China, that we feel that this addition is something that is reasonable and something where we may be making the same type of request or similar type of request in the future for our own consulates.
We would like them to be reviewed and approved a appropriate by the government of China and by the local agencies.
Again, the State Department's position feels this is a reasonable request and that this is a reasonable use of the property in question and we support it.

ACTION: Public hearing closed. Continued to August 10, 2006

AYES: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

12. 2005.0781D (M. SMITH (415) 558-6322)

1467 CLAYTON STREET - south side between Market Street and Corbett Avenue, Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 2712 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of a new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.25.8547, proposing to construct a four-story over garage, two-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

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

NOTE: On May 4, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing, and continued the matter to June 22, 2006, with instruction to the project sponsor to remove the 4^th floor by a vote +5 –1. Commissioner Antonini vote no. Commissioner Hughes was absent. Public hearing will remain open to address any new information.

SPEAKERS:

Michael Kurtzman, Representing the Project Sponsor

As Mr. Badiner mentioned, we had conversations about the height of the building, which was the issue that was brought up at the previous meeting on May 4^th.
At that meeting based on the Planning Commission's concerns about the upper floor and their recommendation, as mentioned in the memo, we were asked and encouraged to seek a variance and enlarge the building footprint to recapture the building area that would be lost if we removed the top floor. So we removed the top floor.
The initial design that went to the Planning Department was reviewed but because certain members of the Planning Department were out of town, we weren't able to go back and forth. That is part of the late nature of the discussion in making this decision just in the past few days. So we have agreed to move that down to 8 ft.
The immediate neighbors on the right side, as well as the neighbor on the left side supported the original project.
We have the neighborhood support in the immediate neighborhood.

Robert Dolan

I live two houses west on Clayton Street.
I was originally concerned when I saw that even though the project sponsor is taking off an entire floor that the net result was only five feet. That does not make sense unless there's something that is not clear.
I just wanted to say that I feel that although I was originally opposed not to the project, but to the scope, the mass, and above all the height, I now feel that they have complied with what you said or what you directed them or suggested them to do.
Concerning the rear yard easement, I personally have no objection and I've talked to other neighbors who also feel that there's nothing wrong with going back.
I feel that they have complied with your request and though I am going to lose that sunlight, I think the rear yard setback or the rear yard easement is worth it.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with an 8 foot height reduction overall and required continued work on design, front setbacks and rear yard encroachment.

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

ABSENT: Lee

13a. 2005.1090CV (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14^TH AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008, 015A and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 303 to allow the establishment of a child-care facility providing less than 24-hour care for up to 25 children by licensed personnel and meeting the open-space and other requirements of the State of California and other authorities. The proposal includes the conversion of the ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool will also use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue and a portion of the rear yard of 1366 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The site is within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Richard Riley

We were just informed that the project sponsor has asked for this continuance so he can work with representatives of either the neighborhood or a neighbor to try and reach further agreement.
I think that was the intent of it.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 21, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

13b. 2005.1090CV (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14^TH AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008, 015A and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Variances from Planning Code Sections 135 (usable open space) to allow the elimination of required usable open space for the single-family dwelling at 1362 14th Avenue and 159(a) & (b) (required off-street parking not on the same lot as the structure) to allow the required off-street parking (for the single-family dwelling and proposed preschool) to be provided on a separate lot approximately 30 feet to the south. The proposal is to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool will also use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue and a portion of the rear yard of 1366 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The proposal will maintain the existing dwelling units located at both addresses (total of 2 units) and the building footprints will remain the same. The proposal will be subject of a concurrent hearing before the Planning Commission for a conditional use authorization to allow the establishment of a preschool in a residential district. The properties are located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 21, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

13c. 2006.0688D (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 14^TH AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lot 015A in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.07.8544 proposing to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 21, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

14a. 2006.0661D (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

889 NORTH POINT STREET - south side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.10.6437, proposing to build a new four-story three-unit building. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. This Discretionary Review is only for the building at 889 North Point Street. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Melania Moberg, Discretionary Review Requestor

I live around the corner from the project.
The reason I brought this discretionary review up is the neighborhood and various neighbors have been working for three years to try to come up with a compromise for this particular lot.
We feel that this option as well as the previous one that was first submitted in 2003 does not keep in context with the neighborhood.
It is much higher than most of the other buildings. It is much bigger, much bulkier and has a very small yard.
This particular project site, being a corner lot that is about 62 feet wide by 80-some feet long is large enough to accommodate a variety of different options that would not require a variance or any kind of special considerations.
There is plenty of opportunity for designs to have been put forth that would have not required any kind of special considerations.
I feel that if a typical resident of San Francisco were trying to make these types of changes and ask for these variances they probably wouldn't be granted very easily.
This project sponsor has been all along the way getting a lot to support from the Planning Department, even though the neighbors have been against it for the most part. Although as mentioned there are letters in support, there are also quite a few letters in opposition to this. It's been a three-year battle.
I also want to comment on the design and context of this building.
I went through the Residential Design Guidelines and found 10 different issues where this building did not meet them (which I have outlined in my discretionary review).
A lot of them have to do with the scale, size and context, but also about the design.
I think this neighborhood in San Francisco deserves a building more in context with its neighbors and I hope you agree.

Roland Salvato

I live at 3924 Larkin Street.
The reason I'm here is because for the last two and a half years I've been trying to figure out exactly what the logic is and justification for allowing that building to have variances.
What's so special about this building that it requires a variance to allow an undersized yard, extensive height and a really bizarre design?
If you look at the profile of the building, it's well over 40 feet in some places, as high as 47 feet. It is competing with the Ghirardelli Square Tower across the street.

Bradford Whitaker

When I first saw the drawing of this new building, I thought, you know, there are some wonderful compromises made by all parties that bothered redesigning this building.
We feel that this corner elevation has a discrepancy of over a foot from the prior design and I'd like to know really where the cornerstone is, because it's relative to the total elevation of this property.
I'd like to know before you make a determination on what the right elevation for this property is that you've looked into it. As far as height variance or allowable height variances, I'm totally against that.
I feel there's too much magnitude here.
This building would be kind of a monolithic piece.

Jill Bittner

I am really frankly shocked that we are still talking about this issue two and a half to three years after the fact.
This is right by Ghirardelli Square, ground zero for tourists.
This is something that is so flagrantly wrong. It's obvious it's too tall. It's got too big of a footprint.
It is out place and out of scale with the neighborhood.

Erica Whittaker

I just don't understand and why we can't put a building there that will coincide with what else exists there.
To me, I think we are an old neighborhood and should be considered a historic neighborhood.
Our home just turned 80 years old.
Our neighbors are just with us and I would like to see something that looks like it's been there for a hundred years and fits in.

Joel Yodowitz, Representing the Project Sponsor

What you have before you today is the redesign that expressly agreed to at a meeting with the DR requestors and some of the neighbors..
When listening to the DR requestor, I'd like to remind you that this same DR requestor who requested that the soils be tested a couple of years ago, opposed a demolition permit for this property and the purpose of the demolition permit was to remove the building to do the very soil testing the DR requestor asked for.
They appealed this to the Board of Appeals, one of you was on the Board at that time, and the DR request was denied so the soils could be tested.
There were countless meetings. The architect had many meetings. The project sponsor had many meetings. As mentioned, that meeting culminated in what we thought was a resolution.
These same DR requestors filed a CEQA appeal on this project and therefore that June hearing got continued.
When we went to the Board of Supervisors last week on their CEQA appeal, they didn't even bother to show up.
We invested a lot of time and effort preparing opposition to that appeal and showing up at that appeal. The City Attorney was there. The Planning Department was there. The Supervisors were there and they didn't show up.
That's is their pattern and practice.
They recently appealed a subdivision map permit for Ghirardelli Square.
That's a very technical type of appeal and the City's notice to parties says, this is a technical appeal.
The hearing was this week, and they didn't show up.
The reason I bring that up is because I think it's important to look at actions that speak louder than words.
These buildings are not out of scale; they are smaller than Ghirardelli Square.
There is a code compliant rear yard in this.
We are not asking for a variance for the size of the rear yard.

Anthony Panteleoni, Architect for the project

Using power point, he gave an overall description of the project showing that surrounding neighbors are a mix of two and four story buildings made of a variety of stucco and wood siding.
There is not a prominent architectural character in the neighborhood.
Our building is going to be 40 feet tall, not 100 feet tall.
After meeting in Supervisor Alioto-pier's office, we decided that we would end up dividing the lot into three separate lots. By doing that, we have the rear yards up against the house at 2946 Larkin Street.
The rear yard requirement is 25% of the depth of the lot. That is what we provided.
We are not asking for a rear yard variance.
Units are typically three stories over parking, three flats over parking. 899 and 889 are essentially the same layout, but the building at the corner of Larkin Street has a penthouse unit. We are 44 feet short of the 1700 required. That is the variance we are asking for.

Tom Coin, Project Sponsor

I just wanted to point out that I think it's important that there's no opposition here tonight from any adjacent neighbors on either side of us.
Also, across the street, the neighbors most impacted by this project, there is no one opposing us.
I think most of the letters in the back of the submittal are from neighbors across the street that have been looking at a long-term eyesore.
Took us three years to get this hearing.
We've been stopped by various strategies but mainly this kind of abusive CEQA appeal which I know you are not responsible for.
I hope you will approve the changes we have put in and approve the project.

Tom Howard, Representing the North Point Neighborhood Association.

My family owned property on North Beach Street across the street from the proposed site for 100 years.
We are for the development of this property. It's just been an eyesore for 75 years with a gas station. And now for the last four years it's just been graffiti and we're tired of all these delays.
The residents and property owners on that neighborhood are just waiting for this piece of property to be developed.
Please vote no on the Discretionary Review.

Tom Branch

I think the scale of the building is well within keeping of the neighborhood and the most immediate neighbors feel the same so we want you to vote in favor of the project and against the DR.

Josephine Mazzucco

My husband and I own the adjacent building that you saw the graffiti on.
Over the last three years we have seen two configurations for this building.
The first was oversized and didn't fit into the neighborhood; and the second did not have space between our buildings and we would have only had a five-foot light well for our living room.
This is more in keeping with the neighborhood and affords us a 15 foot breeze way that is made up of back yards.
We have one concern we want to bring forward to you today that needs to be addressed, and that has to do with a letter dated May 9, 2005, from the Department of Public Health, written to Mr. Coin requiring that the project is to come up with a management plan and a health safety plan to complete the balance of their litigation if necessary.
The control plan also needs to be implemented.
If the health safety plan is implemented as required, we feel the project should go forward as submitted.

Jane Stavropoulos

I have resided at 9 ½ North State Street for over 21 years.
Robert Clutton and I own the site and find this configuration acceptable.
We like the step down on Larkin. We like the garden across the street. We like the garages on North Point and additional parking on Larkin Street.
We are in favor of the project as submitted.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

ABSENT: Lee

14b. 2003.0367V (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

2998 LARKIN STREET, 899 NORTH POINT STREET, 889 NORTH POINT STREET - South side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for a Zoning Administrator Determination under Planning Code Section 228.4 for conversion of the former gasoline service station to a new use. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the determination for the closure for the gas station.

14c. 2006.0367V (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

2998 LARKIN STREET, 899 NORTH POINT STREET, 889 NORTH POINT STREET - South side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for a Variance under Planning Code Sections 121(e) and 134(c)(1) for conversion of the former gasoline service station to a new use. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. Section 121(e) of the Planning Code requires a minimum lot area of 1,750 square feet for the corner lot at 2998 Larkin Street. This lot is proposed to be 1,656 square feet and does not meet the minimum Planning Code requirement. Section 134(c)(1) of the Planning Code limits the last 10 feet of building depth permitted by rear yard averaging to 30 feet in height. The buildings are proposed to be up to 39'-3 in height at the rear and do not meet this Planning Code requirement. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.

I. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 10: 33 P.M.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, January 11, 2007.

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

ACTION: Adopted

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