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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

January 11, 2007

January 11, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 11, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY ACTING CHAIR ANTONINI AT 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Craig Nikitas, Michael Li, April Hesik, Sara Vellve, Michelle Glueckert, Scott Sanchez, Sara Jones, 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.

1a. 2006.0451ACV (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

250 BRANNAN STREET, - between Delancey and 2nd Streets; Assessor's Block 3774, Lot 025 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to convert an historic warehouse into 37 dwelling units and a public parking garage, per Section 303, 818.14 and 818.30 of the Planning Code. The property is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk limit. A Certificate of Appropriateness issued for the proposed project by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board at their December 6, 2006 hearing. The Zoning Administrator will hear a related rear yard modification, open space and exposure variance request.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to January 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

1b. 2006.0451ACV (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

250 BRANNAN STREET - between Delancey and 2nd Streets; Assessor's Block 3774, Lot 025 - Request for Rear Yard Modification, pursuant to Code Sections 134(e) and 307(g), for an exception to the rear yard requirement for the proposed dwelling units because the existing building has full lot coverage. The project also seeks variances from the open space and exposure requirements, pursuant to Code Sections 135, 140 and 305. The proposed project is the subject of a Conditional Use hearing as described above. The property is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk limit.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

2. 2005.0030E (V. WISE: (415) 558-5955)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Proposed for continuance to March 8, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

3. 2006.0070ET (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

CONTROLS FOR LOSS OF DWELLING UNITS - a proposed ordinance amending the Planning Code, adding Section 317, requiring a Planning Commission hearing for any project that would eliminate existing legal dwelling units through mergers, conversions, or demolitions of residential buildings, and requiring certain affordability and soundness findings; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and the general plan. On November 2, 2006, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 17334, intent to initiate a planning code amendment stipulating mandatory discretionary review of all residential demolition and of replacement building permit applications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 14, 2006)

Proposed for Indefinite Continuance

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

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.

4. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 3, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

5. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. Regarding the contest for possible design of tall buildings around the Transbay Terminal.
  2. I've gotten a lot of calls asking what I think about that.
  3. I am supportive of the competition.
  4. I think in a larger sense, the idea toward density and height is a good one.
  5. I think it ties in with environmental concerns; with a stoppage of urban sprawl; with a green philosophy where businesses are beginning to realize that many of their workers are living in dense urban areas and it behooves them to have their business closer to where the population base is. This would eliminate the need for people to drive long distances and would stop the spread of business and housing into rural lands or lands that were green areas.
  6. To that regard, having buildings [against] your urban core, I think is a good thing. Whatever height these buildings should be is a matter of conjecture. The market place to a large degree will determine that. I think it is structurally very possible to anchor them to the degree that they are safe.
  7. So I think this is an excellent concept. I think the skyline defines the city's profile to a large degree. I think it can be done in a tasteful manner and it can be something that can fit into San Francisco and can add to the diversity of density and the diversity of heights that we have throughout the city.
  8. I'm interested in hearing more as the competition continues.

Commissioner Bill Lee

  1. On January 2nd there was an article in the Examiner – Hollywood Again Shuns San Francisco After a Brief Film Revival
  2. My question for the Commission is – the main issue with San Francisco is the production and film studio. What I would like to do is ask Stephanie Coyote to meet with the Planning Commission to go over what are our needs to do more filming in the city over the next 10 or 20 years.
  3. I want to do this because when a film is done in San Francisco, it gives us free advertising.
  4. Because we are in a global market here and we compete with other places, every film that is filmed here, like the Pursuit of Happiness, gives us something that people around the world sees.
  5. So I would like to get a consensus of the Commission to ask Director Macris to sit down with Stephanie Coyote and put together what the city really needs to revive our film industry and have her present to us I think would be worthwhile as we're moving toward Treasure Island review and Hunter's Point and the Eastern Neighborhoods because we need a film studio.
  6. Second, I'd like an interpretation from the City Attorney's Office. San Francisco State University – I've been receiving calls and emails about their expansion. I want to know if we have any jurisdiction at all since this is state property?
  7. I'd like something in writing from the City Attorney's Office that tells us whether we have a role or no role. Whether this is a gray area or there are some areas that we maybe can look into. Something within the next month would be appreciated.
  8. I'd also like to get from Parking and Traffic as we move forward regarding Market/Octavia, but also Eastern Neighborhoods, the number of registered cars and trucks that DMV has for San Francisco.
  9. Finally, I think I asked this last year, we always have issues around liquor licenses – we have more liquor licenses in 45 square miles than all of Los Angeles County. If we could ask ABC how many liquor licenses are issued in San Francisco? How many different types of licenses there are?

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. Would like to know from staff what kind of jurisdiction we have over these towers [Transbay].
  2. I wasn't quite sure because there is a joint powers agreement with Transbay Terminal anyway and I don't know if Redevelopment is lurking around there or not, but would like a briefing on what our commission's role would be, if any.
  3. Also, that extends to Treasure Island. That may be completely out of our jurisdiction, I don't know. But I would like a briefing on that also.
  4. With respect to the ballpark, the Mayor seems to think he's going to plop a new ballpark down on a different site, do we have any say so? Is that going to come before us at some point? What is the role of the commission in that?
  5. Mr. Badiner, if you could check with preservation staff to have them report back for two minutes on the status of the Preservation Element work that has been going on. I think the target for a draft is March or April.
  6. I'd also like to have some information on bus rapid transit along Van Ness. Although it's transportation related, there have been some comments made on impacts to adjacent businesses. I'd like a briefing sometime in our free schedule.
  7. I brought this up last time, but I think I'll make a formal request of the City Attorney's Office to get an opinion on whether or not we need to have public comment on items that have closed public hearings. We have the category on our calendars that allows public comment on items that have already had a public hearing and the public hearing is closed. That seems to me a contradiction. If we are closing public hearing then I don't understand why we have to open it again for comments from the public. So I'd like an opinion on that from the City Attorney's Office

Commissioner Olague

  1. I keep hearing from members of the public about all these plans around increasing heights in certain areas of the city.
  2. I think it would be good for commissioners to be briefed about where those heights are being proposed.
  3. In addition to the Transbay and other areas, I think in general there is some talk of it.
  4. I'm not really aware of what that looks like. So I'd like to have something of where and to what extent.
  5. Also, I mentioned this once before and I guess I can work with Linda on this, but during the Yon Gail] presentation, Alan Jacobs spoke and he made some comments about urban design and heights in San Francisco. And I guess he was part of the team that drafted the Urban Design Element for the city. I know there have been changes since then but I would like to get a better understanding of what the original intentions were and a little more background information and analysis of where we were originally and how we have evolved from there. At some point I'd like to here some perspective on it, maybe from Alan Jacobs and others. And heights in terms of the urban design perspective – that's want I want to look at too.
  6. In the Examiner about a week ago there was an article about absences. I know that one of our commissioners made the list of people who had some extensive absences last year, but I do want the public to know that it was due to his mother having a grave illness and then his mother passed away. A lot of absences had to do with the fact that his mother was dying. I think it's important for members of the public to know that because sometimes when we read an article without any explanation it is easy to interpret that as being a sign of being dismissive or irresponsible to this position. I just wanted members of the public to know that in the case of Mr. Alexander it had to do with his mother passing. It was a long process that was off and on for about a year.

6. Proposed adoption of Planning Commission hearing schedule for 2007.

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hestor

  1. Some of us schedule our vacations around your hearing schedule.

- We count on the fifth Thursday being canceled.

ACTION: Approved as modified to include the cancellation of September 13 for Rash Hashanah and to schedule a discussion/action item on 2/8, 4/12, and 10/11 to discuss whether there is a need to schedule a Special Hearing on the fifth Thursday of the month following these dates. On 6/21 we will schedule a hearing to discuss canceling meetings for the Summer Hiatus in combination with the fifth Thursday in August.

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

7. PLANNING DIRECTOR SEARCH - The Planning Commission will discuss and take possible action on the search for a new Director of Planning. The Commission may take action to: authorize the President of the Commission to execute a contract or contract modification with the existing consultant to continue conducting and assisting in the search for candidates for the position of Director of Planning.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved contract extension to April 1, 2007 retroactive to January 1, 2007

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

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

Director Macris

  1. First, responding to some comments made by commissioners:
  2. On the Transbay Terminal project -- There is an area around the terminal we reviewed about six months ago at the request of the Mayor and the Joint Powers Authority for potential increase in height principally to create more value that might enable more income to build the terminal.
  3. We had been granted $500,000 to take a more detailed examination of what restructuring of regulations we could propose to allow that to happen and that addressed important aesthetic considerations as far as shadowing affects, congestion affects and so forth.
  4. We are pursuing that project.
  5. There is currently an RFP that we have issued in which a number of firms have indicated an interest in assisting the department in undertaking that project.
  6. The schedule of that project is to have a pretty good notion in the latter part of this year on what could be recommended along those lines.
  7. I know this is of vital interest to the Commission and to the public in general because we've had a lot of comment about height increases in that area.
  8. My suggestion would be that we afford the Commission a review of how we are proceeding with this project during the course of this year.
  9. We'll set a schedule that doesn't over do it but keeps you fully informed on the process that we are engaged in and where we think we are headed with that.
  10. In the meantime you should know that there have been proposals made in this area that exceeds the current limits. Now those are proposals and they are going to be examined. What you've heard about heights, are exactly that. They are what the developer is proposing to be done.
  11. Our obligation, because there is a competition underway sponsored by the Joint Powers Authority to design and build a terminal and tower associated with it, is to keep that project informed as it moves along in design.
  12. There has been a lot of international interest in this project.
  13. All of that, as far as the staff is concerned, is in the Commission's prerogative.
  14. The [project] is part of a Redevelopment Area here.
  15. We have a delegation agreement with the Redevelopment Agency.
  16. In the end, this Commission will be making its decisions about changes in zoning regulations that enables buildings to be built in this area.

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

  1. The 49ers are looking for a new stadium. They are in conversation with the city. The Planning Department needs to look to the future of the Monster Park area
  2. -We went to San Francisco State and had a brief presentation on what their plan is in terms of facilities and education. We do not have a formal role in it but arrangements could be made in case the Commission would like to hear about it.
  3. -Van Ness BTR -- major institutional changes. Staff is working on that. This is a major plan to develop the redesign of streets for the future.

1 The Mayor appointed Dan Sider as the new Director of Greening. We are looking for Dan's replacement

Board of Supervisors:

- Maxwell's resolution passed last week as amended by the Land Use Committee with changes by Supervisor Peskin with recommendations from the Planning Commission.

- 3300 Hayes St. was appealed and upheld unanimously. It is coming to the commission on Feb. 1st, assuming the DR is not withdrawn

- Kate, a Deputy Director of the Board [of Supervisors], is retiring after 40 years of service to the city

- There was an introduction of an ordinance by Supervisor McGoldrick amending the Planning Code to allow landmarking of interiors of publicly accessible privately owned buildings.

- The rezoning of Alemany / Cayuga passed to the full Board recommending approval

Board of Appeals:

- There was nothing critical for the Planning Commission. All were individual cases

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

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

SPEAKERS

Aaron Goodman

-Requested that the Commission review a Park Merced project. It is included in next week's agenda at the Board of Appeal

Patricia Vaughey

-Case for 2734 Baker under DR schedule for Feb. 28. There has been no input from the neighborhood. No drawings.

-Applied for variance. Be very careful of what the process is for variances.

Sue Hestor

-Cases should not be scheduled if it does not have all required information.

-Do not serve 311 notices without a historic preservation survey.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

10. 2006.1407U (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

801-825 Mission Street - south side of Mission Street between Fourth and Fifth Streets, Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 3724 - Request for approval of a Signage Design Guideline Program for subsequent installation of business signs in a Public (P) Use Zoning District under Planning Code Section 605, at the ground level retail spaces at the Fifth and Mission Yerba Buena Parking Garage, in a P (Public) District, and a 90-X/340-I Height and Bulk District

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17351

  • F.REGULAR CALENDAR

11. 2006.1333D (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

843 Howard Street - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, Lot 082 in Assessor's Block 3733 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006 1205 9187 to maintain operation of a medical cannabis dispensary (dba  The Green Door ) of approximately 2,600 square feet. The property is within the C-3-S (Downtown Support) District and a 130-F Height and Bulk District. The subject space was previously occupied by a hair salon. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

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

SPEAKERS:

Heather Libson, DR Requestor

-I am a parent of three children and horrified with the idea of this dispensary in the area.

-It is totally inappropriate to have a cannabis dispensary too close to children activities.

Joseph Libson

-This dispensary is going to be too close to children; one block from day care center, and two doors from an aquarium.

-Requested that the Commission take DR, contact police, or reject the project.

Starchild

Supports The Green Door.

People complain about not having it here, but do not say where it should be located.

Aaron Seligman

I'm a patient of The Green Door. I support the project. Do not take discretionary review.

Rachel Walker

I'm an employee and neighbor of The Green Door and I'm supporting the project.

Jaime Galindo

Supports the project.

Rev. Webster

They should be given the permit.

Shana Gocheneum

Highly recommends The Green Door.

Mira Ingram

I support the project and am asking that you not take discretionary review.

Naomi Finkelstein

I support The Green Door. Please give the permit.

Denise Dorey

The Green Door has helped me economically. Help us keep our resources.

Mathew Stephen Pruitt

The Green Door is being helpful to people. We do need them in the community.

Michelle Aldrich

No need for discretionary review of the Green Door.

Michael Aldrich

I conquer with no need for discretionary review.

Gilbert C.

Do not take discretionary review. The Green Doors is only helping the community.

Marcy Nolin

I support not taking discretionary review.

Kevin Reed

It has helped economically. Do not take discretionary review.

Walter

The Green Door is positive and has moderate prices.

MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and approved without allowing consumption on site

AYES: Alexander, Antonini and Sugaya

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

RESULT: Motion Failed

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved without allowing smoking on site unless the law changes to allow it.

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

NAYES: Antonini

12a. 2005.0259VD (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

755 Bay Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 0045 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.06.8041, proposing to legalize the construction of a roof deck and to construct a new staircase. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, Three-Family House) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

Glenn, Project Sponsor

Referred to letters from three adjacent neighbors supporting repairs and the deck's construction

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

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

12b. 2005.0259VD (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

755 Bay Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 0045 - Request for a rear yard Variance. The proposal is to legalize the construction of a 330-square-foot roof deck with solid railings and to construct a new wood-frame staircase to access the deck from the exterior of the second level of the building. The roof deck and staircase would be located on an existing non-complying building that is located entirely within the required rear yard. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, Three-Family House) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a

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

13. 2006.0102D (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

434-438 Greenwich Street/42-46 Telegraph Place - north side between Telegraph Boulevard and Child St; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0078 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.09.27.3502. The subject property is a four-story building with five legal dwelling units. The proposal is to convert the number of dwelling units in the building from five units to four units by merging two units on the second floor. The subject property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKERS:

Anne Kathleen, Project Sponsor and Owner

-I'm the owner of the building and I wish to remain there. This is the only way to afford it.

-This project will not displace anybody because units are vacant.

-Asked the Commission to over turn the staff decision.

MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and disapprove

AYES: Alexander and Olague

NAYES: Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

RESULT: Motion Failed

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

14a. 2005.0739CP (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

720 LA PLAYA - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 1596 in Assessor's Block 042 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 711.83 and 303 of the Planning Code to install a total of three (3) antennas screened from view on the roof of an existing approximately 50-foot tall mixed-use structure, as part of Sprint's wireless telecommunications network within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The related equipment cabinets would be located on the roof as well. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Site5.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS:

Jose Quintero

-There were two proposals; cylinder and much larger structure.

-Support cylinder but bigger structure opposing for visual obstruction

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Olague

MOTION: 17352

14b 2005.0739CP (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

720 LA PLAYA - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 1596 in Assessor's Block 042 - Request for Coastal Zone Permit pursuant to Section 330 of the Planning Code to install a total of three (3) antennas screened from view on the roof of an existing approximately 50-foot tall mixed-use structure, as part of Sprint's wireless telecommunications network within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Grant Coastal Zone Permit.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Olague

MOTION: 17353

15. 2006.0734C (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor

-Granting entertainment license would increase control from the city over this venue.

-Sound officer would supervise and control the sound; the noise do not come from a particular place; there are numerous businesses present in this block.

-In 1954 there was a lot of bars and this area is entertainment, night usage.

-Numerous people supporting are present in the room. Asked public to raise their hands (about 25 supporting; 5 living within the district, one living on top of the bar)

Calvin Snyder

Supports the conditional use. It will bring safety and clientele to the area.

Gene, adjacent neighbor

Requesting disapproval of the application. They are already a disturbance to neighbors.

Jennifer, Retail business

The bar is a really good neighbor. There are no complaints about them.

Jack Andrews

This business has brought more clientele to the area.

Johnny

Supports the bar. They have brought higher quality patrons to the area.

Travis

The bar has brought in a higher clientele and entertainment would increase this better element to the neighborhood.

ACTION: Following public testimony, President Alexander closed the public hearing. The Commission continued this matter to 4/12/07 and required the project sponsor to do a sound study. The public hearing will be reopened if new material/information is put before the Commission for consideration.

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

16a. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for review under Planning Code ("Code") Section 309 of the construction of a new, 12-story mixed-use building containing approximately 56 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage, requiring the authorization of exceptions to Code standards for height above 80 feet, building bulk, rear yard, and off-street parking, as well as the granting of Variances of Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

16b. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in conjunction with the construction of a new, 12-story mixed-use building containing approximately 56 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

17a. 2006.0134EVX (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558-6291)

16 Jessie Street/1 Ecker Street - north side of Jessie Street between First and Second Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 3708 - Request for Determination of Compliance and Rear Yard Exception under Section 309 of the Planning Code. The project would convert the existing four-story commercial building, a Category I structure constructed in 1906, with a total area of approximately 57,000 gross square feet, from office and retail uses to residential and retail uses. The conversion would retain approximately 2,000 square feet of retail use along the Ecker Street frontage and would add approximately 51 residential dwelling units from the ground through the fourth floor levels. The existing building currently contains no existing off-street parking spaces and no off-street parking spaces are proposed as part of the project. As the existing structure fully covers the lot, an exception to the rear yard requirements is requested at all residential floor levels. The property is currently within a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and a 550-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as amended to require steel windows; salvage the bricks carefully; re-use the bricks if possible

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

MOTION: 17354

17b. 2006.0134EVX (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558-6291)

16 Jessie Street/1 Ecker Street - north side of Jessie Street between First and Second Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 3708 - Request for a Residential Dwelling Unit ExposureVarianceunder Planning Code Section 140. As approximately 19 of the proposed dwelling units would face onto either Ecker Street with its 10-foot width or the inner courtyard at the center of the building, the units cannot meet the applicable dwelling unit exposure code requirements. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. See Item "a" above for a project description. The property is currently within a C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District and a 550-S Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: None

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

18. 2006.1284ET (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

CONDITIONAL USE FOR DEMOLITION OF DWELLING UNITS - a proposed ordinance amending the Planning Code, introduced by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell under Board File 061371, adding Section 317, prohibiting the demolition of residential units unless Conditional Use authorization is granted for the replacement building, making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and the general plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution approving amendment with modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 14, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 18, 2007

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

19. 2006.1399ET (S. Sanchez: (415) 558-6326)

Consideration of an ordinance initiated by SupervisorPeskin on November 7, 2006 (Board File No. 061539) which would amend Planning Code Section 176 (Enforcement Against Violations) by: 1) Providing for penalties for violation of the Planning Code of not less than $200 per day. 2) Specifying that the City Attorney may seek attorneys' fees and costs for all enforcement actions. 3) Providing that all such fees and costs collected shall be deposited into the Planning Code Enforcement Fund. 4) Making and adopting environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

SPEAKERS:

David Noyola - Office of Supervisor Peskin

-The legislation speaks for itself. The amendment would give the ability to go after violations that occur.

-I am here on behalf of Supervisor Peskin and would be happy to answer any questions.

ACTION: Approved

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

RESOLUTION: 17355

20. 2006.1400ET (S. Sanchez: (415) 558-6326)

Consideration of an ordinance initiated by SupervisorPeskin on November 7, 2006 (Board File No. 051844) which would amend Planning Code Section 610 (Violation of General Advertising Sign Requirements) by, among other things, deeming violations of this section a public nuisance, defining  Responsible Party , amending the penalty accrual, amount and collection provisions, requiring building permits for compliance work, providing for reconsideration hearings before an Administrative Law Judge, and establishing a hearing fee; and making and adopting environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

SPEAKERS:

Bob Klausner

Asked for continuance to consider significant negative impacts.

Deedee Workman

San Francisco Beautiful supports the legislation.

Jerry

Consider lowering amounts for mandatory penalties.

Antony Leones

Amounts are high. Consider issuing a notice of violation before the judge assign a fee.

Jeremy Paul

-Read letter from Ken Cleveland opposing the ordinance.

-It would impact on property owners and the market having to wait three years before the inventory can be validated and certified.

David Noyola - from Supervisor Peskin's Office

-This ordinance is clear; we believe it leads to a much smoother enforcing process.

-We have worked hard for the past six months with staff and communicate with most of the persons who spoke today and tried to incorporate their suggestions into the legislation.

ACTION: Approved as amended to require a review in one year

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

RESOLUTION: 17356

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:

Yomi - General Manager of the Recreation & Park Department

-This project is a high priority for us; we have been working on this for over five years.

-The State gave us this property to maintain and keep it running. The Marina is getting deteriorated and is in need of our attention.

-There has being extensive public input. We have had 13 community meetings.

-The environmental review was done in 2002 and we would like to go forward with this project.

Andy Thornley

-On behalf on San Francisco Bicycling Coalition we are requesting that you not certify this project because of significant impact to the bay trail alignment.

-Support the Market/Octavia plan.

Laura Thompson - Manager of San Francisco Bay Trail Project

-Requesting to not certify this project.

-It would have a high impact for pedestrians and bicyclist safety as well as the circulation along the shoreline.

Marcie Keever - Program Director of San Francisco Beautiful

-It would have a significant impact on the Bay Trail and we are asking that you not certify the FEIR until it is addressed.

Joan Girardot

-The FEIR is not adequate. It does not address public health and safety hazards.

-We are asking you to pass a resolution for the seawalls to be retrofitted and that you not certify until we make sure it is going to happen.

Bright Winn - Boat owner and tenant at the Marina

-I have witnessed deterioration of the Marina. It does need this renovation.

-The harbor is a jewel with the most beautiful views in San Francisco.

-I ask that you pass the environmental report.

Soleil Euebner - Supervisor Alioto-Pier's Office

- Supervisor Alioto-Pier submitted a letter supporting this project and I am here to emphasize that support.

-Environmental document consists of an extensive review of the environmental impacts of this case. Issues that had been raised, we believe, are addressed in the report.

-We respectfully request that you certify this report and have the project proceed.

Emeric Kalman

-This project eliminates the use of the harbor to small boats.

-Requested that the Commission not approve the certification.

21. 2002.1129E (S. JONES: (415) 558-5976)

San Francisco Marina Renovation - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report - The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina at 3950 Scott Street (Assessor's Block 900, Lot 003). Water-side improvements would include installation of three new breakwater structures and the removal of two existing breakwater structures; reconstruction of portions of the degraded rip-rap slopes around the interior shorelines of the marina and along the outer seawall (between the St. Francis and Golden Gate Yacht Clubs); maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation of an oily water and sewage pump-out facility and refurbishment of two sewage pump-out facilities; upgrade of electrical and water services to the new floating docks; and improved lighting on the docks. Landside improvements would include renovation of marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of a vacant building (former Navy Degaussing Station) into office space; construction of a new 1,000-square-foot maintenance building; and re-striping of existing parking lots. The project site is within a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Please note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report is closed. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: FEIR Certified

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

NAYES: Moore and Olague

EXCUSED: Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17357

7:00 P.M.

22. 2003.0347MTZ (J. Billovits (415) 558-6390/A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Market and Octavia Plan Amendments - The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on or after October 26, 2006, to consider Case No. 2003.0347EMTZ, adopting a Motion to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings and consider Resolutions to adopt amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map related to the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. A series of public hearings are scheduled for October 26, 2006, Nov. 2, 2006, Nov. 9, 2006, Nov. 16, 2006, and Dec. 7, 2006. The Commission will consider and receive public comment on specific aspects of the Plan and proposed amendments at each hearing.

The series of hearings was originally scheduled to culminate in a hearing to consider adoption actions on or after Dec. 7, 2006. As the Nov. 16th hearing was cancelled, the Commission held hearing number four on Dec. 7, 2006 and hearing number five on December 14, 2006. Additional hearings are likely to be added after the new year, with adoption actions on or after January 18, 2007.

At the hearings, the Planning Commission will consider a rezoning and public improvements program to realize the vision articulated by the community through the Market and Octavia community planning process. For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at ttp://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org.

Draft Schedule for Planning Commission Hearing

This calendar gives notice that the Planning Commission will be hearing the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan on or after December 14, 2006. Be advised that due to the nature of the public hearings, the Commission may continue any particular hearing item and/or may not hear all items at the hearing. To confirm the final Commission Hearing schedule, on the week of the hearing please visit: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_meeting.asp?id=15840 or call Aksel Olsen at 558-6616.

Hearing # 5 – January 11, 2007

At this hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following aspects of the Plan:

  • Community Improvements / Public Benefits (continuation)
  • SoMa West Area Heights Review –  Towers and Transitions
  •  Pipeline Projects Discussion on Plan Proposal

· Overview of various minor project-related issues in plan area

· 555 Fulton St. land use and height district issue

  • Follow-Up on various Comments and Questions (continuation)

For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at http://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org. In addition to providing information about the proposed General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments, staff will also provide follow-up information on issues discussed at earlier hearings.

Plan Area

The Plan encompasses an irregularly shaped area in northeast San Francisco. It extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Boulevard for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Plan Area boundaries extend from 11th and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west. The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central Freeway alignment to include the area up toTurk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street between 10th and 11th Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area boundaries jog along Division, Clinton, Stevenson, Fourteenth, Guerrero, and Sixteenth Streets. The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor's Blocks in entirety or in part, including the whole of Blocks 759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 809, 813 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to 3506, 3512 to 3514, 3533 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3560; and portions of 3507 (lot 40), 3510 (lots 49, 57), 3511 (lots 1, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75, 80, 82, and 93), and 3532 (lots 14, 19B, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90 and 91).

Specifically, the Commission will consider the following items and may take action on or after January 18, 2007:

· Case 2003.0347M - a proposed General Plan amendment that would add a new area plan, the Market and Octavia Area Plan, and make related amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Housing, Recreation and Open Space and Transportation Elements, the Civic Center Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, South of Market Area Plan and the Land Use Index;

· Case 2003.0347T - a proposed Planning Code text amendment that would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and establish new fees;

· Case 2003.0347Z - a proposed Zoning Map amendment that would revise Maps 2 and 2H, 7 and 7H, and 2SU and 7SU. The proposed Planning Code text and map (Zoning Map) amendments would a) establish three new zoning districts, b) amend the Hayes-Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs), c) update height and bulk districts, d) establish the Market and Octavia Community Improvements Impact Fee, and e) make related revisions necessary to implement the General Plan. The proposed changes are described in greater detail in Case 2003.0347T (above).

Together, these Commission actions are intended to implement the Market and Octavia Plan. In addition, an historic survey is currently being done of the project area; property owners considering constructing or altering a building in this area should consult with Planning Department staff to determine the historic resource status of their property. Property owners and interested parties are advised that height limits and other controls do not provide unqualified rights to development, but rather, proscribe the maximum potential building envelope that may be permitted; proposed buildings may not reach the maximum permitted building height/envelope. The Commission may also consider establishing interim procedures to guide the review of plans to construct new structures and alter existing structures to protect potentially eligible historic resources in the Plan Area prior to conclusion of an historic resources survey.

Members of the public may review a copy of the proposed amendments at the San Francisco Planning Department office at 1660 Mission Street 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, at the Public Library (the Main Library 100 Larkin St., and Harvey Milk branch library, 1 Jose Sarria Ct. (near16th & Market Sts.). An electronic copy of the proposed amendments and actions is available at http://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org.

As part of Case No. 2003.0347T, the proposed Planning Code text amendment would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and establish new fees. The proposed amendments are described more fully below:

Establishment of Three Zoning Districts in the Plan Area

The Transit-Oriented Residential Use District(RTO) will replace most of the RH and RM districts zoning north and south of the Market Street corridor, extending north to Turk Street, west to Noe and Scott Streets, and South to Sixteenth Street. The proposed RTO district will encourage moderate-density, multi-family, and residential infill. Because of the availability of transit service, proximity of retail and services within walking distance, and limitation on permitted parking the RTO permits the construction of some housing without accessory parking. Parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing within buildings in keeping with neighborhood scale. Proposed heights in Residential Transit Oriented (RTO) Districts and RH districts primarily remain 40 and 50 feet as currently classified; in some RTO areas, permitted heights will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to 40 and 50 feet.

A Neighborhood Commercial Transit District (NCT) will overlay the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and portions of the Upper Market and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts within the Market and Octavia neighborhood. In named NCT and NC-1 (T) districts, parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing above ground-floor retail uses. These districts will largely keep the existing specific use-size controls. They include current Neighborhood Commercial Districts (Hayes-Gough, portions of the Upper Market, Valencia) and several parcels currently zoned NC-1.

The Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will permit the development of a transit-oriented, high-density, mixed-use neighborhood around the intersections of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street and South Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street. This SUD will overlay existing C-3-G districts and existing C-M districts will be rezoned to C-3-G with this new VNMDR-SUD. Parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing in buildings with mixed-used podiums and some residential towers at two key intersections: Market Street and Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue. Proposed heights in the Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will change from 120, 130, 150, 160, 200 and 320 feet to 85, 120, 200, 320 and 400 feet; towers will be permitted over a podium of 85 or 120 feet; the highest towers will be permitted in the vicinity of the Market Street/Van Ness Avenue intersections.

In the Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Commercial Use Districts (NCT), height districts will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to primarily 55, 65 and 85 feet; these districts will be located in SoMa West and along Market Street. The NCT district will largely replace C-M and NC-3 districts. In the NCT district, parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing above ground-floor retail uses. These districts will largely keep the existing specific use-size controls in place in the NC-3 district. Some heights on some parcels near Brady Street will change from 105 and 60 feet to 40 feet and 85 feet on parcels surrounding a proposed public open space.

Establishment of New Fees in the Plan Area

In order to fund the community improvements identified in the Plan, the Program document proposes to establish a Development Impact Fee, requiring the growth that generates the demand for additional infrastructure and services to provide some of the revenue required to fund the improvements. The proposal establishes a development impact fee on new residential and commercial development in the Plan Area. The fee proposal is $10.00 per square foot of residential development, and $4.00 per square foot of commercial development.

To encourage the provision of necessary and desirable public infrastructure improvements and also in order to mitigate the impacts of this increased localized density, the Department has established the Van Ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund. Developers may provide in-kind public improvements (such as open space or streetscape improvements) or proportional in-lieu contributions to this fund that will allow the city to develop these facilities. The Department estimates that no more than 6 potential development sites would benefit from participating in the program. The Department has set the value of the additional FAR at par with the current market value of historic TDR credits ($15 per square foot).

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the following:

  • Draft Motion to Certify the EIR and adopt CEQA Findings (Case 2003.0347EE)
  • Draft Resolution to amend the General Plan (Case 2003.0347M)

Draft Resolution to amend the Planning Code (Case 2003.0347T)

SPEAKERS:

Marius Starkey

Consider one-to-one parking.

Curt Holzinger

In opposition to the project because of historic preservation concerns.

Sally McDonnell

Projects will be too high for neighborhoods. Property values will be diminished.

Georgie Faine

It would be industrial looking. Neighborhood character will not be maintained.

Richard Henderson

Buildings should be modified. Sunlight would be obstructed.

Jane Becker

Reject the proposal. Respect neighborhood character.

Craig O'Connor

I'm concerned about health issues and neighborhood character.

Peter Lewis

Requested protection for historic preservation.

Gideon Kramer

Concerned about parking and protection for historic preservation.

Lisa Arena

Concerned that there was not proper notification to adjacent neighborhoods.

David Silverman

Consider building grocery stores and not limit less than 50-foot projects.

James Haas

-Support the project and request that you include a garage for the arts activities.

-The project should not be less than 50-feet in order to pay for it.

Sara Karlinsky

Strongly supports the plan. It brings out the beauty of San Francisco.

Jason Henderson

Plan would increase property values and parking should be subject to inflation rather than a flat fee.

Alastair Mactaggart

Supports the plan. An objective is that the 11th and Mission building should be reduced to 85 or 40 feet.

Steve Vettel

Self-Storage at 11th and Mission should stay and not be used as a residential building.

Cynthia Servetnick

The public process has been improper. Historic preservation has not been evaluated.

George Williams

I'm in favor of the plan. It is the best thing the department has produced.

Arnold Townsend

Allow Market to stay with 5-story buildings.

Hiroshi Fukuda

The process did not notice the public properly. Notice should be done citywide.

Jim Meko

The plan over-reached geographically. Affordability has not been mentioned.

Peter Cohen

-The Duboce Triangle Neighbor Association submitted suggestions and ideas.

-We want you to consider a structure for this plan that provides for an advisory committee includes its role, monitoring and reporting mechanisms, staff and funds for your consideration.

Harry O'Brian

Reductions will impact Gough and Grove Streets.

Jim Keith

Keep height to 80 feet on Market and Duboce.

Tom Radulovich

Fantastic plan. I support it.

Neil Kate

-Presented a proposal for a mixed project of commercial, housing and parking at Laguna and Fulton Streets.

Shelagh Ross

I suggest having leaders form a community advisory committee to inform neighborhoods.

Stephen Haigh

Opposes the plan. It separates neighborhoods along Market Street.

Robin Levitt

Supports the plan. It is time to move forward.

Adam Millard-Ball

We have waited too much for this. Move forward.

Karin Moree

We need housing. This plan assures positive and safe environments.

Sue Hestor

-Affordability, transportation, and a wind study have not been talked about.

-Downtown was zoned for offices not housing.

Ed Brincat

I'm in favor of passing the plan.

Rufino de Leon

I'm in support of the plan but small business should be included as well.

Paul Olsen

I'm very supportive of the plan. Move it forward. It has been seven years already.

John

Opposes the plan. It is not about housing needs. It is based on financial interest.

ACTION: Following public testimony, President Alexander closed the public hearing for the day. The next public hearing is scheduled for 2/8/07. This was scheduled for information and public discussion only. No action by the Commission was taken.

EXCUSED: Sugaya

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS:

Edgar Brincat

The exhibits, designs, and 3-D presentations of the Market/Octavia Plan helped visualize the entire project.

Adjournment: 10:57pm

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

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

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:25 PM