SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 25, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:34 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, AnMarie Rodgers, Erika Jackson, Susan Exline, Sophie Middlebrook, Richard Cooper, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2007.0701C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

1400 Grant Avenue - northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Green Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a small self-service restaurant (d.b.a.  Honeydoo Frozen Yogurt) of approximately 1096 square feet within the existing ground-floor retail space. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. This site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 18, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Tin Nguyen

- My partner will read a statement from us.

Christopher Vu

- We request that you not continue it beyond the 8^th because of financial hardship since it was continued many times already.

ACTION: Continued to November 8, 2007.

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

2. 2007.0461C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

448 BROADWAY- north side between Montgomery and Kearny Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0144 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to operate a business under this application between the hours of 2 AM and 6 AM. Specifically, the project proposal is to extend the hours of operation of the subject business (dba  Broadway Express ) to 3:00 AM. No construction is proposed under this application. This site is within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 18, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

3. 2007.0628D (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

2200 17^TH AVENUE - east side at the southeast corner of the intersection with Rivera Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 2333A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.26.2734, proposing a third-story vertical addition, a two story southern side horizontal addition, and a rear horizontal addition to allow for egress stairs to a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 11, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 8, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn

4. 2007.0936T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments relating to Planning Code Sections 781.8 [Board File No. 07-1217] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Ammiano amending Planning Code Section 781.8 to allow relocation of existing Liquor Establishment in the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict to another location within the same Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict; and making findings.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 8, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

5. 2006.1227C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

5735-5757 Mission Street - southeast side between Whittier and Oliver Streets Lots 038, 039, 040 of Assessor's Block 6473 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 711.11 and 711.39 to develop a lot greater than 9,999 square feet in area and to demolish residential units above the ground floor in the NC-2 Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project will demolish the three existing buildings on the property, containing 7 dwelling units, combine the lots into one parcel, and construct a new 4 story tall, mixed use building with 22 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space and underground parking.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 11, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 15, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

6. 2005.0490E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 575-9040)

3500 19^TH STREET - northwest corner of Valencia and 19^th Streets - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of a 5-story, 50-foot-tall building totaling approximately 29,829 square feet, with 17 dwelling units, 17 off-street parking spaces, and about 2,852 square feet of retail space. The project site (Block 3588, Lot 012) is in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project site is in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area and is subject to the Housing/Mixed Use Guidelines. The proposed project would require a Conditional Use Authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to November 15, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

7. 2004.1245E (N. TURRELL: (415) 575-9047)
300 Grant Avenue (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - Assessor's Block 0287, Lots 013, 014 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 10,500 square-foot project site is located at 300 Grant Avenue (aka 272-290 Sutter Street) on the northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street in the Financial District neighborhood. The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings containing approximately 35,600-square feet of retail space and construction of an approximately 114,354 gross square foot, 12-story, 130-foot tall building containing up to 56 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail space, and 34 to 40 off-street parking spaces. The retail entrance to the proposed project would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street, while the residential lobby entrance would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Harlan Place. Access to the parking garage would be from Harlan Place off Grant Avenue. The site is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail) within an 80-130-F height and bulk district, and the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 27, 2007)

NOTE: On July 12, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to uphold the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) by a vote of +2 -4, the motion failed. Commissioner S. Lee was excused. The Commission continued the matter to September 6, 2007 by a vote +5 -1,

(Proposed for Continuance to December 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Shelby Campbell

- On July 12 we were before you and took your concerns and comments very seriously.

- We are preparing to come back and have gotten input and feedback. Subsequently, we have brought on a preservation architect.

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

8a. 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, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 27, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to December 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

8b. 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, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 27, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to December 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

Add 1 is from the Addendum

Add 1. 2007.0584C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

2298 MARKET STREET - northeast corner at Noe Street; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3560 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303(e), to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization in order to allow the existing large fast-food restaurant (D.B.A. Café Flore) to operate and provide outside food-service 24-hours a day, 7-days a week, and to allow  other entertainment – including amplified music – until 2 a.m. daily. The Subject Property is within the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 11, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to December 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

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.

9. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

10. Commission Comments/Questions

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

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

Commissioner Antonini

- I am a member of the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society and just wanted to mention the excellent publication that they do in the Argonaut.

- There are many historical groups in the California Historical Society, SPUR and others who have excellent newsletters.

- This is particularly good and there is an article by James Haas on Mayor Edward Taylor who had a real significant role in San Francisco History in the great architectural section on the buildings that were built in the 20's in downtown San Francisco.

- I just think that this is excellent reading and I am really impressed with the things they have in many of the articles. They have a lot of significance for planning issues and they deal with a lot of historical issues too.

- My second comment: I was happy to be a guest at the Mission Language and Occupational School's 39^th Annual Dinner last Friday night.

- I was really impressed by this organization and their principles emphasize their students to strive for English proficiency, homeownership, College education, and financial prudence.

- I think they are a positive force with these guidance principles and I think it was worthy to mention it because like so many things we hear problems and we do not hear about the success stories.

- Thank you for my host and for being in that group.

Commissioner Olague

- I think my question is partially directed to the City Attorney.

- I have been receiving calls from members of the public who are concerned about the vote of the Community College Trustees last week that exempted them from local planning and zoning ordinances when it comes to the Chinatown City College Campus.

- They were asking me and I did not know what to answer.

- Is there a way that as a Planning Commissioner I could challenge that decision?

- It seems, to me, that it is sort of irresponsible in a way to not at least ask the question given the design of the project that I saw here goes outside of what is in place currently in the code.

- I was wondering if there is a way that I can challenge that.

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney

- The California Government Code certainly allows a challenge in court of the decision to exempt done in arbitrary or in a capricious decision.

- Litigation is one route for individuals or an entity to pursue with that decision.

- It is also my understanding that the CEQA process is not yet completed and there still remains project approval.

- The City as an entity and individuals can certainly still have a role in that CEQA process and on the mitigation measure and ultimately litigation is open to the City as well as individuals on the approval of the project in the CEQA review.

- As a third possibility, I am not certain of what the City's role may be, there may ultimately be the need to procure encroachment permits from the City for use of the streets or the sidewalks in which the City has a proprietor interest and that may also be another role for the City to play in the future.

- At this point in challenging that decision simply to exempt themselves from City zoning and building ordinances, it is most likely to be in court.

Commissioner Moore

- Thanked Commissioner Olague for bringing this up; I would fully support the challenge and I want to express my great disappointment about this particular decision.

- I believe that Planning staff has created a really convincing case of why this really was way outside and there were many alternatives of putting a reasonable building on that site.

- There were other architects that made suggestions and I fully support any action which legally could be taken in court to challenge this decision.

- Second point: I would like to thank Mr. Badiner for preparing a memorandum to the Commission regarding the Academy of Arts University Compliance Proposal.

- While we are not discussing that today, I fully support everything summarized in the outline.

- The one thing I hear is that the City will not be able to levy any fines against this cross violations of the Code and so many cases that almost hardly there is any precedence to it.

- I think Mr. Badiner, perhaps you and the City are investigating ways to kind of basically create a precedence that this is not going to happen again and be able to find ways to levy fines.

- This set the worse precedence ever in the City of San Francisco and anybody could imitate that without a lot of challenges.

- Basically, that is acknowledging and commending you for that.

- I have another issue which I actually have consciously observed for the last couple of weeks walking downtown during lunch or rush hour time.

- I realized that shuttle services are provided for employees and students like Bank of America, Bay Club, Sports Facilities and several large apartment buildings.

- The Academy does that with quite large buses. Is that supposed to be a mitigating measure for traffic impact? I think it has turned into the opposite.

- I was standing at the corner of Montgomery and Mission Streets yesterday at lunch time and I went through two cycles of traffic light changes with one bus of the academy blocking the intersection.

- A bus that is supposed to have at least 20-25 students had only one student in it.

- I find that unacceptable because it really creates the opposite of what is intended. I think it needs to be re-examined.

- I do not know the conditions by which it was done but I think this is the time to really reinvestigate that.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We will add that to our study of the Academy of Art and I would like to acknowledge your  thank you' and actually pass it along to Scott Sanchez who really has done the hard work on that.

Commissioner W. Lee

- This is regarding the Russian Hill Community Association – John Bardis.

- We are getting all these emails regarding notification and what I would like to do is to [request] from Mr. Badiner if you can formally write them a letter that the Planning Commission made the decision on it and that the next step would be the Board of Permit Appeals?

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I actually reviewed a letter today that Adam Light drafted in response to their letter of October 5^th and we just received another letter either yesterday or today.

- I asked them to incorporate those changes or any additional information. I think that letter should be on the way out today or tomorrow.

- Essentially that acknowledges their letter and why we do not think that additional notice is necessary.

Commissioner W. Lee

- The City Attorney's Office will review the letter and conquer with your interpretation, right?

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We did not review it with the City Attorney; the interpretation that I made the City Attorney commented on it last week.

- It is within my jurisdiction and I typically do not review every letter with the City Attorney unless I believe that it is a questionable issue and need their advice.

Commissioner Sugaya

- Following up on City College with the City Attorney; the CEQA documents as I remember is based on a proposed project which is the high rise that was presented before us.

- Now, the City College is taking the direction of going to a two building scheme, I think, which was sort of one of the alternatives.

- Do they have to re-do the EIR?

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney

- It would depend on of what the EIR covers. There are some criteria that would require recirculation and we can certainly take a look at the EIR and see if recirculation or additional environmental review in our view is necessary.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I also would like to thank Scott Sanchez and Mr. Badiner for the memorandum on the Academy of Art. There are a couple of things that should also be included that I mentioned last time.

- How many of the buildings they took over were formally residential hotels? Who were the tenants? How were they evicted?

- Secondly, to reinforce Commissioner Moore's comments about buses and the use of buses.

- I believe that in the front of their properties on the 1000 block of Pine Street on the South side there are no loading zones.

- There are three to four buses at various times parked on the street waiting for students to board and it has happened to me three to four times now and it is a mess.

- Also, I forwarded to Mr. Sanchez some observations about benches that are on City sidewalks in front of a lot of their facilities; it is small thing.

- Also, if you could find out or coordinate with DBI on the building codes issues and find out whether there are penalties being levied and what the amount would result in.

Commissioner S. Lee

- I just wanted to follow up on Commissioner Olague's comments about the City College exemption.

- I am wondering if there is precedence for the Planning Department or Commission to object when UCSF or some other State mandated organizations have exempted themselves from our local planning rules and general plans.

- That would help us as a Commission to figure out how to move forward.

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney

- I personally can not remember any time when the City challenged legally the exemption question.

- The City has certainly been involved in the project themselves in working with the UCSF, San Francisco State or the School District on the project approval themselves and has had extensive comments in the CEQA process.

- The City certainly has a role in any mitigation measures that come out of the CEQA process that will fall to the City.

- As recent CEQA case law really requires entities that may otherwise be exempted to look more to the City and to reach more certainty on mitigation measures that may be in the City's authority.

- I can not personally recall going to court on just the exemption question.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- I conquer with the City Attorney; I do not remember ever challenging an exemption decision.

Commissioner S. Lee

- But in those cases, has not there been more cooperation between the sponsoring agency and the Planning Department in terms of project or CEQA review as Ms. Stacey has stated?

- I know that in Mission Bay there was a lot of cooperation between UCSF and this department.

- We had a public hearing where City College was kind enough to come and present to us and as Commissioners were dismayed as to how the project does not comply with the General Plan.

- And yet, they have gone head and said that they have the authority to exempt themselves and have the authority to adopt or certify the EIR and I believe they have.

- The question in my mind is if there is a continuous role for the Planning Department as the project moves forward?

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We will reach out to City College and let them know about our availability to work with them on their design. I have not been particularly involved, Director Macris is.

Commissioner Olague

- I support some kind of on-going dialogue and I would also like to understand what type of input the department has given to City College.

- I would like to have periodic information updates to continue to have some kind of engagement even at the Commission level.

Commissioner Antonini

- I think that any information that we can get as the project goes forward is always welcome and if we are allowed to have any input on the design without talking in terms of the mass, which seems to be a settled issue.

Commissioner Sugaya

- The mass is the issue and I do not think we ought to drop it.

- If the CEQA process needs to be looked at then maybe City College ought to be reminded that they need to look at it if the design is changed substantially.

Commissioner W. Lee

- Instead of just looking at the City College in Chinatown, we are going to take an issue with State and Federal projects and their designs.

- We should look at what is our role and we need help from the City Attorney's Office because we had a battle with the State Office Building, Mission Bay, UCSF Expansion and the bottom line is do we have jurisdiction?

- If we do not have jurisdiction, what would be our next step? We should make a broader hearing to find out what role we have as a Commission regarding State and Federal Buildings.

The Commission decided to schedule a special hearing on December 6^th, 2007 at 10 a.m. to discuss THE City College issues.

11. The Commission will meet to discuss whether or not they will schedule a special meeting on Thursday, November 29, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: The Commission decided to not schedule a special meeting on November 29, 2007

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)

12 Director's Announcements

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

AnMarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

A- Ordinance to modify the definition of liquor store to remove grocery stores and similar uses from this prohibition - Continued and added an amendment that would place further prohibitions on grocery stores such that they could not sell so-called  fortified' liquors within these alcohol restricted use districts.

B- Ordinance that would require a Conditional Use for a change of use for Elementary or Secondary School – Continued for an additional week to allow the School District to do further work on this topic.

C- Hearing on FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] – Status on their draft National Flood Insurance Maps for San Francisco. These draft maps are now available for public review and comments.

Full Board

A- Market and Octavia Plan – General Plan Amendments, Planning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments. Area Plan Passed. The Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments will be further discussed at the Board's Land Use Committee at a date yet to be determined.

B- Ordinance exempting Wind Turbines from Bernal Heights Special Use District – Allowing these wind turbines to minimally exceed the height limitations. Adopted.

C- Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial Controls – This amendment would change the use size limits permitted and conditional use for commercial and institutional uses. Passed.

D- Adopted a resolution that would initiate Landmark Designation for 690 Market Street, Chronicle building.

E- Ordinance amending the Inner Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District to provide for a limited number of new full service restaurants and new wine and beer bar uses. Passed

F-CEQA Appeals

a. 700 Valencia Street Project – Affirmed the Final Mitigated Declaration

b. 376 Eureka Street – Categorical Exemption continued to November 13.

G- New Legislations:

a. Supervisors Sandoval and Peskin collaborated on an ordinance that would create the Alcohol Restricted Use District for the Excelsior and North Beach.

b. Three Landmark Tree Nominations within Supervisor Ammiano District.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals

A- 415 Castro Street –  Quickly' – On October 18 the Project Sponsor submitted a proposal that would modify the use so it is no longer a formula retail use and it would be a retail grocery with accessory take out. Upheld the Notice of Violation.

B- 1745 Market Street – This department issued a violation to a Medical Cannabis Dispensary and they wanted to proceed with the mandatory discretionary review hearing before this Commission for their permit. There are violations that do not necessarily pertain directly to the dispensary; the Code does not allow us to process permits when there is a violation on the property. Upheld the Zoning Administrator with the condition that the letter of determination be modified to allow the case to proceed.

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

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

SPEAKERS

John Bardis

- Requested that the Commission take action as provided by Government Code section 54954.2(a) to direct staff to continue the November 1^st public hearing to a future date.

- Application for permit number 2005.06.16.5311 needs to comply with section 311 of the Planning Code.

Kathleen Courtney [1135 – 1139 Green Street]

- This is about the proper support and implementation of Section 311 in the Planning Code; this project should be subject to it.

Michael Yaki [City College]

- Contrary to some statements made, the exemption is not a blanket exemption.

- The City actually has the authority, pursuing Government Code 53094, to challenge the exemption granted to itself by City College.

Arthur Chang, San Francisco Tomorrow

- There is State Law which required the College to request the review of their plans for the exemption of the zoning code of the City and that is the Public Resource Code 21151.2

- Proposition M, H and as well as the Downtown Plan are being violated by the proposal that they have submitted.

Tony Gantner, North Beach Merchants Association

- We believe in the rule of law, that history must be preserved, that neighborhoods are inviolate, that parks are sacred and that our Planning Commission must be here to uphold City Charter and defend the integrity of our neighborhoods.

- We believe that an investigation is in order regarding City College.

Luke Obrien

- I am here to announce the formation of a new organization called The San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth and within a few weeks we have established a Board of Directors and have registered with the various appropriate authorities at the City and Federal levels.

John Keogan, San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth

- This organization is going to address the needs and concerns of all stakeholders in San Francisco and one of our goals is to make San Francisco a better city.

- Only 39% of the population in San Francisco are homeowners and we would work closely with other like minded politicians and individuals to reverse that trend.

The following category was added from the Addendum:

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

Robert Gimelli

- Deny the addition that would virtually be condominiums at 875 Post Street because it would turn the building into a mix use with tenants in SRO [Single Room Occupancy] above.

- Although it would increase the housing stock, it would also close the door on any possibility of any negotiation or discussion between the Property Management Company and tenants to provide services or amenities to have a decent life.

Tracy Boxca

- We would like you to keep in mind three things: the project adds four more units to the middle income housing stock, proposes no new parking, and it will activate the ground floor space which is dormant.

- We contacted the Tenderloin Housing Clinic for possibilities to have amenities on the ground floor and there are no funds to do it - neither for staff or maintenance.

Rudy Colombini

- We are trying to improve peoples' lives and this is an excellent opportunity for dwelling San Franciscans to have their own homes.

The following category was added from the Addendum:

CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

Add 2a. 2007.0242CV (Tape IB) (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to reduce the parking requirement by one off-street parking space pursuant to Planning Code Section 161(h) in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. Requests for Variances from the rear yard, open space, and dwelling unit exposure requirements of the Planning Code will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at the same hearing. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea no. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 11, 2007)

NOTE: On October 11, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to approve with an encouragement to the Project Sponsor to establish community space by working with Tenderloin Housing. Motion failed by a vote of (+3 -3) S. Lee, Moore and Olague voted against and W. Lee was absent. The item was continued to October 25 to allow the absent commissioner to participate in the final action (+6 -0).

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Olague and S. Lee

MOTION: 17503

Add 2b. 2007.0242CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for rear yard, usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea no. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 11, 2007)

NOTE: On October 11, 2007, following public testimony, the Zoning Administrator continued the item to October 25, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

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

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

Item taken off consent and out of order followed item 15

14. 2007.0683C (Tape IB) (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

2976-2980 24^th Street - northeast corner of Harrison Street, Lots 039-040 in Assessor's Block 4206 - Request for Conditional Use (CU) Authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 to allow a reduction in the off-street parking requirement for dwelling units for the addition of one dwelling unit to an existing mixed-use building within the 24^th Mission NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

John Lau, Project Engineer

- The violation mentioned is not a violation to convert a residential unit but to add a bathroom.

- We thought that this is a better use of the property and to add affordable rentals for the City.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17505

Item taken off consent and out of order followed Addendum 2a. and b.

15. 2007.0787C (Tape IB) (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)

4045 24^TH STREET - south side between Noe and Castro Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 6507 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 728.49 and 728.21, to allow a new financial service (Wells Fargo Bank), which will be moving to a new location on the same block with a non-residential use size greater than 2,500 square-feet within the 24^th Street – Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17504

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

16. 2007.0514T (Tape IB; IIA) (S. EXLINE: (415) 558-6332)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 315/Inclusionary Housing: Alternative Rehabilitation for Rental - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly as part of Board File No. 070444 that would amend portions of the Planning code to allow a new alternative to meet the requirements of the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing ordinance by allowing payment to a nonprofit to acquire and rehabilitate units for permanent affordable rental housing if the number of units is 25% greater than the amount provided under the existing off-site alternative.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Lois Roberts

- I am presently living in a space that has been proposed for rehabilitation but they have not come up with that amount of money yet.

- You would probably loose 100% of housing for people who are under rent control on rehabilitation particularly with buildings that are not considered below standard.

ACTION: There was no support to the recommended amendments but suggested that Supervisor Daly, the Mayor's Office of Housing and Planning Department staff continue working together on this issue.

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

RESOLUTION: 17506

17. 2007.1111T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments relating to Planning Code Sections 260(Bb) [Board File No. 07-1291] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly amending Planning Code Sections 260(b) by adding subsection 260(b)(1)(A)(i) to allow mechanical equipment and screening changes that do not exceed three additional feet in height and do not contain new occupiable floor space in any C-3-G Zoning District; and adopting findings. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing continued to November 1, 2007

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

18. 2007.1106A (Tape IIA) (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

236 MONTEREY BOULEVARD - "SUNNYSIDE CONSERVATORY" - North side of Monterey Boulevard, between Baden and Congo Streets, Assessor's Block 6770; Lot 057. The subject property is local San Francisco Landmark Number 78, and is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition as defined by Article 10 of the Planning Code and to improve access to the site. The project proposes to remove non-original siding and to replace the siding and architectural elements with materials and features that are historically accurate and that match the original. Work also includes providing a new retaining wall and fence along Monterey Boulevard, new gathering areas within the public park space, new service areas, restrooms, and event preparation within the existing storage area, and new ramps and railings in a reconfigured entry area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with additional conditions:

- The project sponsor will consult with an urban forester prior to moving any historic plantings.

- The project sponsor will consider replacing the existing composite roof shingles with wood shingles to match the original; consult with Recreation and Parks.

- When the design documents are at 100% completion, the Project Sponsor will return to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for review and comment.

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

MOTION: 17507

19. 2004.1059E (Tape IIA) (R. COOPER: (415) 575-9027)

BALBOAPARKSTATION AREA PLAN - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Planning Department-proposed Balboa Park Station Area Plan (the proposed project) includes amendments to the San Francisco General Plan and specific Planning Code changes related to zoning districts and height and bulk controls in the Project Area, which includes the area surrounding the Balboa Park Station and along Geneva, Ocean, and San Jose Avenues. The proposed project would introduce a new zoning district–NC-T (Neighborhood Commercial Transit)–into the Project Area, that would potentially increase transit-oriented mixed-use developments. Improvements to the existing streetscape, transportation system/transit facilities, open space, as well as new urban design policies may result from implementation of the Area Plan. The Area Plan also includes specific proposals for mixed-use, transit-oriented development in the Project Area at: (1) the Phelan Loop Site; and (2) the Kragen Auto Parts Site. Implementation of the Area Plan would result in a net increase of about 1,780 new residential units and about 104,680 net new gross square feet of commercial development in the Project Area by the year 2025. A net increase of about 90-200 jobs would be expected in the Project Area by the year 2025 as a result of implementation of the Area Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on November 5, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

No Action is required of the Commission

G. PUBLIC COMMENT (Tape IIA)

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: 4:30 P.M.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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