SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 14, 2005
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sue Lee; Dwight S. Alexander; Michael J. Antonini;
Shelley Bradford Bell; Kevin Hughes; William L. Lee; Christina Olague
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:40 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Mathew Snyder; Michael Li; Ben Fu; Dan Sider; Winslow Hastie; Rick Crawford; Nannie Turrell; Glenn Cabreros; Mary Woods; Isolde Wilson; Kate McGee; Jim Miller; Jonas Ionin – Acting Commission Secretary.
1. 2004.0076C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
1350 Natoma Street - west side, between 14th and 15th Streets, Lot 089 in Assessor's Block 3548 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 215 and 303 to allow the construction of 8 residential dwelling units in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation, and in a Housing/Mixed overlay as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727. The proposal is to demolish the existing industrial building and construct 8 dwelling units within a new four-story over ground floor parking garage building containing a total of 8 off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve project with a maximum height of 40 feet with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to July 21, 2005 September 8, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Eric Quezada, Anti-Displacement Coalition
- Requested the item be continued to August 4, 2005.
Mr. Scallon
- Requested the item be continued to August 4, 2005.
Ted Whipple
- Asked for a continuance.
Sue Hestor
- Asked for a continuance until September.
Robert Garcia
- Asked for a continuance until September
ACTION: Continued to September 8, 2005
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
2. 2005.0524T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS PLUS TEXT AMENDMENTS -Consideration of an Ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number 050601] which would establish a “Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation Process” by (a) adding Chapter 36 to the Administrative Code in order to set forth uniform procedures for developing comprehensive neighborhood plans, (b) amending Administrative Code Section 3.4 to provide for integrated budget documents, and (c) adding Section 312A to the Planning Code regarding discretionary review for projects located within plan areas.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to July 21, 2005 July 28, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Judy Berkowitz
- Respectfully requested three things: 1) Instruct the Planning Department to distribute via mail copies of the proposed legislation to neighborhood organizations throughout San Francisco; 2) Provide a minimum 60-day public review period after the distribution of the proposed legislation to the public; 3) To schefule public hearings after the review period on the proposed legislation.
Dick Millet
- Support the 60 days continuance for the Better Neighborhoods Plus Text Amendment.
Hiroshi Fukuda
- Support the 60 days continuance.
Molly Hopp
- Support the 60 days continuance.
Mary Ann Miller
- Support the 60 days continuance.
John Bardis
- Support the 60 days continuance.
Marilyn Amini
Supports the 60 days continuance.
Joe Boss
- In all due respect to the folks who are here from the Coalition, we have worked really hard for the last year and a half with the Planning Department, with Supervisor McGoldrick, and with many people. If we failed to reach out to the Coalition, I apologize.
ACTION: Continued to July 28, 2005
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
3. 2003.0029E (C.Roos: (415) 558-5981)
ONE RINCON HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (425 FIRST STREET) - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report – The project proposes demolition of a building complex, consisting of a three-story office building, a clock tower, and a two-story parking garage, and construction of a 720-unit residential development as follows: a 450-ft.-tall, 45-story north tower with about 312 units; a 550-ft.-tall. 54-story south tower with 354 units; about 14 stacked townhouses, 45-ft.-tall fronting Harrison Street and First Street; lobbies, management office, fitness center; about 3, 220- gross square feet (gsf) of convenience retail; 720 parking spaces in two partial above grade and five partial basement levels, with attendants and mechanical lifts, accessible on First Street; four loading spaces accessible on Harrison Street; about 49,000- sq.-ft. of common and private open space; and an additional 19,00 sq. ft. publicly accessible open space including a widened sidewalk and landscaping along Harrison Street and in the First Street public right-of-way. The project would total about 1,217,315 gsf, a net increase on the site of about 1,133,399 gsf. The site includes Lots 1, 9, and 15, in Assessor’s Block 3765, on the block bounded by Harrison, First and Fremont Streets and the Bay Bridge West approach.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.
NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on April 19, 2005. 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.
(Proposed for Continuance to August 4, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
4. 2003.0029EX (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)
ONE RINCON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (425 FIRST STREET) - Motion to Adopt CEQA Findings The project proposes demolition of a building complex, consisting of a three-story office building, a clock tower, and a two-story parking garage, and construction of a 720-unit residential development as follows: a 450-ft.-tall, 45-story north tower with about 312 units; a 550-ft.-tall. 54-story south tower with 354 units; about 14 stacked townhouses, 45-ft.-tall fronting Harrison Street and First Street; lobbies, management office, fitness center; about 3, 220- gross square feet (gsf) of convenience retail; 720 parking spaces in two partial above grade and five partial basement levels, with attendants and mechanical lifts, accessible on First Street; four loading spaces accessible on Harrison Street; about 49,000- sq.-ft. of common and private open space; and an additional 19,00 sq. ft. publicly accessible open space including a widened sidewalk and landscaping along Harrison Street and in the First Street public right-of-way. The project would total about 1,217,315 gsf, a net increase on the site of about 1,133,399 gsf. The site includes Lots 1, 9, and 15, in Assessor’s Block 3765, on the block bounded by Harrison, First and Fremont Streets and the Bay Bridge West approach. The Commission will consider a Motion to Adopt CEQA Findings the proposed project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Motion
(Proposed for Continuance to August 4, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
5. 2003.0029X (M. SNYDER; (415) 5756891)
425 FIRST STREET (AKA ONE RINCON HILL) - southeast corner of First Street and Harrison Street, currently occupied by the Bank of America Office Building and Clock Tower, Lot 1, 9, and 15 in Assessor’s Block 3765 - Request under Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and an exception to allow greater than one parking space for every two units, as well as to allow a portion of the parking garage above grade. The subject property is located in a Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and a 45/550-R and a 45/450-R Height and Bulk District. The project is to demolish the existing office building, the Bank of America Office Building and Clock Tower, and construct a residential project that would consist of two towers reaching 550-feet and 450-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouses) and townhouses that would align Harrison Street and First Street. The project would include approximately 709 dwelling units, 3,200 square feet of convenience retail, and 709 parking spaces (non-independently accessible).
(Proposed for Continuance to August 4, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
6. (L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)
PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS - Consideration of amendment to Article IV, Sections 3 & 6 to address notice and voting; add a new Section 7 to address jurisdiction; and renumber remaining sections of Article IV.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 16, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to August 4, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
7. 2004.1158D (b. fu: (415) 558-6613)
877 Carolina Street - east side between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor’s Block 4097 - Request forDiscretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.16.9070 proposing to construct an one-story vertical addition to the existing one-story over garage single-family dwelling, within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve project as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
B. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
8. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of June 9, 2005.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Olague, and W. Lee
EXCUSED: S. Lee and Hughes
9. Commission Comments/Questions
None
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
10. Director’s Announcements
Alicia John-Baptiste
- Gave a summary of the Department’s budget.
- The last time I appeared before you, the budget was being heard at the Board of Supervisors Budget Committee. It had been reviewed by the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Analyst.
- There were a series of recommendations the Budget Analyst had put forth that the Budget Committee was considering and that staff was working with both the Supervisors and the Budget Analyst’s Office to reach agreement on.
- It included a reduction of $9 million--which would take it from $17 million to $16 million for fiscal year 2006.
- After extensive discussion with both offices, staff did agree to a series of reductions to the budget, but suggested that the resources could be reallocated with the Department’s budget to fund other priorities of both the Department and the City. In total the budget was reduced by about $450, 000.
- During the Budget Committee’s add back process, $500,000 was added back into it.
- I think the significant difference between the budgets as we had proposed it prior to it going through this process and where it stands today is a net reduction in the umber of FTE available to the department.
- The budget analyst had recommended deletion of a couple of vacant positions, three vacant positions that the Department agreed to.
- While the Department had no intention to fill those positions in the next fiscal year, this does limit our flexibility as we move forward, both in this fiscal year and in the coming fiscal years.
- I can go through any of the detail of the changes that were made. But just to keep it brief, where we are today, the budget is heard three times by the full Board of Supervisors. The first reading was this past Tuesday. The second reading will be the coming Tuesday and then the adoption of the budget is expected for July 26.
- We intend then to return to the Commission to modify our work program. We had put together a work program in February that assumed a certain level of resources both in terms of staff and other items--professional services, materials and supplies.
-
11. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BoS:
- 1740 20TH Street – Categorical Exempt Appeal – single-family house built in the 1950’s, proposing a one-story addition. Board of Supervisors upheld the Department 11 to 0.
- The Board of Supervisors appeal of Cost Recovery Surcharge – some questions were raised on a $111 surcharge to cover our court cost. It was continued to next week.
- Tourist hotels in the SFO, had its first reading and was passed unanimously.
- Divisadero’s Formula Retail – was passed on its first reading yesterday 8 to 3.
- Amit Ghosh gave a report regarding the Rincon Hill Plan.
BoA:
None
- D. GENERALPUBLIC 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:
Sue Hestor
- I would like to ask the Commission to focus on issues that come up. You are frustrated and it just kind of goes off into the void.
- When some legislation was before you a couple weeks ago, I brought up an amendment that I thought would help you deal with monitoring demolition, stabilization of buildings while the hearings are pending which sometimes takes a six-month period between application and hearing.
- Not amending Supervisor McGoldrick’s Legislation, you missed the opportunity to do something without a very long protracted period.
- How do you get back to the issue of monitoring stabilizing projects between the application and the hearing, so you don’t have the issues that you already know about?
- I’ve heard you talk about--in some cases barely--the quality of reports, inconsistencies in the plans that are before you, inconsistencies between the plans and the reports, and these come up a lot on DR’s. Are you going to do something to make that work?
Alice Barkley
- Spoke in regard to the problem of staff assignments and backlog of cases.
Robert Pender
- Would like to publicly commend the staff at the [PIC} counter at 1660 Mission Street for the first class work that they are doing.
- .
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.
12. 2003.1210ECK (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
5600 THIRD STREET- the block bounded by Third Street, Bancroft Avenue, Mendell Street, and Armstrong Avenue, Lot 3 ,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 in Assessor’s Block 5421 - Request for a determination regarding the significance of net new shadow on Bayview Playground caused by the construction of a proposed five-story, 50-foot-high mixed-use building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the net new shadow will not be significant or adverse.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague and W. Lee
ABSENT: Antonini
MOTION: 17054
13. 2005.0432C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
2237 Mason Street - west side between Chestnut and Francisco Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 0051 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to relocate a full-service restaurant and bar (dba “Fior d’Italia”) of approximately 5,400 square feet to a vacant ground-floor commercial space. The proposed use is not formula retail as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Lee Gordon
- Strongly urged the Commission to approve this project.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
MOTION: 17055
14. 2004.1118C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
1075 Evans Avenue - west side of Hunters Point Blvd., Lot 005, Assessor’s Block 4603A - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 711.83 and 790.80 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 2 panel antennas on an existing 89-foot lattice tower and related equipment on the ground as part of Nextel Communications’ wireless telecommunications network on a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location – Publicly-used structures) site within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
MOTION: 17056
15. 2005.0171D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
130 Townsend Street - west corner of Stanford Street (parallel to and between 2nd and 3rd Streets), Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3788 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2005.05.24.3339 and Miscellaneous Permit Application Number MB0500372 (a Zoning Referral from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control [ABC]) which would change the use of a vacant approximately 6,300 square foot single story building to (1) an approximately 3,800 square foot full-service restaurant/bar (DBA “Tres Agaves”) which would sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site and (2) an approximately 2,500 square foot art gallery. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed. Planning Commission Resolution Number 14844 requires a Discretionary Review hearing for all projects that involve a new or relocated liquor license or bar within the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District (BVSUD). The property is located in an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, the proposed BVSUD, the South End Historic District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review in order to approve the project as proposed along with a 'good-neighbor' NSR
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved with the condition to include attendant valet parking.
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
MOTION: 17057
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
16a. 2004.0274CV (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)
310 TOWNSEND STREET - north side, between 4th and 5th Streets; Assessor’s Block 3786, Lot 13 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to convert an historic office building into 45 dwelling units, per Section 818.14 of the Planning Code. The property is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 65-X Height and Bulk limit. The Zoning Administrator will hear a related rear yard modification, open space and exposure variance request.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Jarrod of Ruben and Junius, representing Project Sponsor
- We did reach agreement with the neighbors.
- There is no known opposition.
Toby Levy, Architect
- Gave an overall description and review of the project design.
ACTION: Approved with conditions as drafted
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
MOTION: 17058
16b. 2004.0274CV (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)
310 TOWNSEND STREET - north side, between 4th and 5th Streets; Assessor’s Block 3786, Lot 13 - 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 65-X Height and Bulk limit.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.
17a. 2005.0463CV (R.Crawford: (415) 558-6358)
399 Buena Vista Avenue East (aka Buena Vista Manor House) - south side (between Park Hill Avenue and Upper Terrace, Assessor's Block 2607 Lot 099) - Request under Planning Code Sections 209.3(b) for Conditional Use Authorization to expand an existing residential care facility. The Project will add a sunroom of approximately 228 square feet and expand the existing deck from 125 square feet to approximately 273 square feet, at the rear near the southwest corner of the building. This project lies within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District and within the 80-E Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
Robert (no last name), Architect for the project.
- Gave a detailed overview of the project’s design and description.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: Hughes
MOTION: 17059
17b. 2005.0463CV (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
399 Buena Vista Avenue East (aka Buena Vista Manor House) – north side (between Park Hill Avenue and Upper Terrace, Assessor's Block 2607 Lot 099) - Request for a Variance from Planning Code Section 134, Rear Yards, for a 6 foot rear yard where 55.8 feet are required, and Planning Code Section 188 to expand a non-complying structure. This project lies within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District and within the 80-E Height and Bulk Districts.
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 17a
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.
18. 2004.0220ECK (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)
1840 Washington Street - Assessor’s Block 0599, Lot 008 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 45,043-gross-square-foot (gsf), eight-story, 80-foot-high residential building, which would include about 31,763 gsf of residential use (26 dwelling units), and 13,280 gsf of parking (34 off-street parking spaces). The proposed project would also include the demolition of an existing 7,500 gsf, one-story-plus-mezzanine building formerly occupied by Teevan Restoration. The approximately 7,021-square-foot (sf) project site is located mid-block on the north side of Washington Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. The site is zoned RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District and is in the Van Ness Special Use District, and an 80-D height and bulk district. The proposed project would require conditional use authorization for new construction exceeding 40 feet in height in a residential district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 12, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
[Unclear name], Pacific Place Residents, Appellant
- The revised initial study fails to adequately address the shadow effect onto Pacific Place backyard and west facing units.
- The significance of the environmental impact is, in any measure, in light of the context, which occurs.
- The shadow effect from the project will have significant impacts on not only the use of the rear courtyard as well as the light received by the west facing units.
- The report does not address any mitigated issues that might be applied, such as setbacks or lowering of the height of that building.
[Unclear name], Ruben & Junius, representing Project Sponsor
- The worst case in the study that the condo owners next door commissioned is on the Equinox. There would be an increase of 40%.
- In response to the neighbors’ concerns, I want it make clear there is no fight over the facts here.
- Even though it is notorious in San Francisco that an outdoor pool is not favored by our climate, even in Summer months, the Sponsor went ahead and commissioned a detailed shadow study which was then checked by the Appellant with their own consultant, and the appellant’s consultant agreed that the Sponsor’s study was generally accurate.
- To conclude the replacement of hillside of the housing project constitutes visual impact, says little about the environmental significance of the appearance of a building in an area that is already highly developed.
- The project here is not located in an environmentally sensitive area and it does not implicate any historical or scenic resources.
Jim Ruben, Ruben & Junius, representing Project Sponsor
- It is precisely the kind of project the Planning Department and the City wanted in creating the Van Ness Special Use District.
- It is close to transit, surrounded by neighbors of equal or greater density and will provide housing suitable for first-time buyers and young families.
- It is supported by a wide cross-section of neighbors, business interests and others. And our submittal, which is pretty complete, includes a number of letters of support.
- San Francisco’s Planning policy on residential infill projects has not and should not be about less housing in favor of protecting a private lot pool from the impact of a small incremental amount of shadow that happens primarily in fall and winter.
- If that is the policy of this City, it seems to me that we will have a significant amount of de facto down zoning in the area around Pacific Place.
Tom Harris, Architect for the project.
- Gave a detailed overall description of the project design.
Tony Chan, Managing Partner of Project Sponsor for 1840 Washington St.
- The target market that we are aiming for, are the first-time buyers, the young professionals that are either single, married or starting a small family. We believe this is a very large and important segment of the population that San Francisco should have for economic health and vitality.
- Even though it is not required of us, we have done extensive shadow studies upon their request.
- We have done traffic studies, wind studies, all of which confirm the low impact of our project.
Lorraine Weiss
- Opposed to the project and the environmental impact report.
Roland Stone
- This project will stand out like a sore thumb and be totally out of character with 1800 block of Washington Street, where no building is taller than five stories.
Judy Gerstel
- Opposes the project.
Stephen Gerstel
- Where else in San Francisco would you approve a building so tall as to tower over the backyard of 150 homeowners?
- The shadow of that will be significant.
- We have no other common area where we can meet and get together. This is the heart of the community.
Judy Wilkes
- The first thing I would like to make clear, base on some comments from the developer, is that Pacific Place residents are actually in favor of the concept of development on this site. We would welcome anything that improves our neighborhood. It is the specifics of this particular development that we oppose.
Jim Salinas
- We are here asking that the Commission uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration given the fact that the shadow impact is minimal to the area.
- We believe that this project sponsor has come up with a beautifully designed building that actually enhances the surrounding neighborhood, as well as the fact that we believe that this project sponsor is responsible, and that they are developing not only jobs, but housing as well.
Bryce Riddle
- Concerned about air ventilation.
Scott Freeborn
- Spoke in opposition to the project.
Yvonne Leung
- I am here to object also to the height of the proposed development.
- It would detrimentally impact on the quality of life of the residents in our building.
ACTION: Upheld the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
MOTION: 17060
19. 2004.0220CEK (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
1840 Washington Street - north side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0599 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 253 and 303 to allow construction of a building more than 40 feet in height in a residential district. The project proposes demolition of a one-story commercial building and new construction of an 80-foot tall, 26-unit residential building with 34 parking spaces in an RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): Same as item 18.
ACTION: Approved with conditions as drafted
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
MOTION: 17061
20. 2005.0458Z (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and changing the use classification of two lots at the intersection of 18th and Sanchez Streets from RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family District) to NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. The subject properties are Assessor’s Block 3581, Lot 087 and Block 3584, Lot 001 which are located at the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection, respectively.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
Supervisor Dufty
- I don’t know if you have had an opportunity to see our lounge, but it is a beautiful corner at Sanchez and 18th Street.
- It is kind of a great use, because it is a non-alcohol related establishment. People under the age of 21 are really challenged where to go to have a nice evening, have a date, and visit with somebody. People who may be in recovery are challenged to go someplace which isn’t really alcohol focused.
- It is beautifully designed inside and offers a real unique experience in the neighborhood.
- It came as a surprise to me that despite the long history that these corners have containing commercial businesses and activity, that the zoning is such that would prohibit them to have out-door seating.
- I am committed to bring forward some legislation that would really make it legal and legitimate.
Carolyn Thomas
- I am a little concerned by Mr. Dufty’s remarks regarding neighborhood improvements, because I don’t recall any indication prior to the notice that there were changes about to be made.
- Neighbors have not been included in discussions around the change.
- There has been over the past five years increased business use in that neighborhood. And that increased business use has actually affected our quality of life, including additional trash on our front door steps. And that trash is composed of cups, bottles, glasses, cans, drug paraphernalia, and food wrappers.
- In addition, from a personal stand point, twice in the last week I have had to call the Police Department regarding parking and double parking, including blocked driveways.
Carter Lewis, Managing partner of the lounge
- I would like to first say that our goal is to have this ordinance go through simply because we would like to have outdoor seating for our customers.
- To the best of our knowledge, our neighbors have been very supportive of what we have been doing.
ACTION: Approved as amended: To include the property of the southeast side [or all four corners].
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
MOTION: 17062
21. 2005.0345T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)
North Beach NCD Use Size Limitations - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending sections 121.2, 178, 186.1, 722.21 and 722.46 concerning use size limitations and their relationship to subsequent new uses in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District; to amend sections 186.2, 604 and 722.42 to address antiquated provisions concerning specified signs and uses in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District; to amend 722.10 to delete provisions superceded by Ordinance No. 20-88; and to make conforming changes to the chart titled “Specific Provisions for the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District” in Section 722; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 16, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued Indefinitely
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
22. 2004.1162D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
266-272 CUMBERLAND STREET - North side between Church and Sanchez Streets, Assessor's Block 3600 Lot 076 -Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No.2004 0809 1048 to construct a one story vertical addition to the existing three story building, in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review, disapprove the vertical addition and allow interior modifications as proposed.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 11, 2005
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
23. 2004.0196D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
101 POPPY LANE - north side past Diamond Street. Assessor's Block 6713 Lot 056 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No.2004 0915 4254 to construct new three story, single family dwelling on a vacant interior lot, in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the project.
SPEAKER(S):
Debbie Yee, Discretionary Review Requestor
- I urge the Commission to take Discretionary Review. But further, we are also urging the Commission to compel the project sponsor to reduce the size, bulk and invasive features of the project in accordance with the Residential Design Guidelines and the Glen Park Community Plan, which was intended to be a policy document for the Glen Park Neighborhood as drafted in November 2003, which the Commission adopted on April 15th, 2004.
- Both the Residential Design Guidelines and the Glen Park Community Plan require or place considerable importance on the preservation of neighborhood character.
Bruce Katz
- The proposed building is in flagrant violation of the Residential Design Guidelines and will negatively affect the quality of life of many people if it gets built this way.
Katherine Warham
- The proposed house would far exceed the mean and median of the surrounding light.
- We urge you to require that the proposed project be downsized to fit the scale of the neighborhood with an F.A.R. that is closer to the mean of .44.
Kate Ben
- I am upset about the dimensions of this proposed structure, which I feel is out of character with our neighborhood.
- Also, I am very concerned about what this development could mean for the future of Poppy Lane.
- The proposed building would forever change the rural character of the Lane, and in that we would lose something very important in our small neighborhood.
- I urge you to help us to protect Poppy Lane
John Rahosky
- It is a very unusual anomalous situation.
- It is destroying our mid-block space, and it does not follow the Residential Design Guidelines.
- We would like to characterize the proposed building as the big plop.
Roberta Guise
- I have problems with regards to the landscaping. We ask that you require mature rather than young growth, because we do not have 15 years to wait for trees to get to give us a privacy screen.
- Also, I have a separate concern regarding the guest bedroom.
- The developer has made some promises to us and says we will talk about those later.
- But, we have no way of assuring or guaranteeing those promises will be actually made.
- One way to assure them is to actually write them into the permit and require that deed restrictions be put on the property so that future owners will know how they have to treat this property.
Marcy Dunn Ballard
- It boggles my mind how anybody could approve the building on this property.
- I have the pleasure of looking at this beautiful green, very small section between the back yards of my neighbors.
- I ask the Commission to approve the design review.
Mark Fowler, representing the two owner of 86 Sussex St.
- Today, I speak for them and myself, with major concerns for the same issues as addressed by the Discretionary Review applicants.
- We stand in firm support of their request for discretionary review and in opposition to this project as proposed.
- We are extremely concerned with the precedent that will be set here today by this Commission.
- By your actions today, this Commission will either enable the future and further destruction of Poppy Lane by allowing housing and development to the detriment of the Glen Park Neighborhood.
Ken King
- Urged the Commission to take Discretionary Review.
John Burton
- This project poses very serious problems for fire restriction. The Lane is only 14 feet wide and it is very narrow 14 feet between the buildings. The nearest hydrant is 250 feet away, and the Lane there is steep.
Lawrence Cohen
- Worry that this house is the beginning of a transformation of the quality of our neighborhood.
Joel Shipper
- I am opposed to the project.
C .J. Higly, Law Office of Ruben and Junius
- I have to use my time to clarify some of the exaggerations and distortions that the Discretionary Review requestor has been spreading in an effort to shut this project down.
- The root of the opposition stems from the fact that they treated the vacant lot as a public park.
- In the 12 plus years the project has been in limbo, they have come to believe they are entitled to maintain the use of this property as open space.
- The property is not a park, nor is it part of the DR requestor’s backyard as they claim over and over again. It is a parcel of private property. Just like each of the parcels that each of their homes is built upon, and to date neither the City nor the neighborhood has offered to pay fair market value.
Tony Panteloni, Architect
- Gave a detailed project design presentation.
Brian Spears, speaking of behalf of Kevin Sullivan and the owners of the property.
- This project is a very good project and will be done well.
- We urge you to not take DR and approve it.
Patricia Riley, Property owner
- Allow us to build the house we have wanted to build for 26 years.
- We have gone through the process legally and respectfully.
ACTION: Continued fro September 15, 2005
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford-Bell
24. 2005.0185D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
1865 CLAY STREET - south side between Franklin Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0623 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.11.17.9505S, proposing to convert the building’s authorized use from eight dwelling units to six dwelling units in an RM-3 (Residential Mixed, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications, specifically, maintaining the ground floor two-bedroom unit and eliminating the second floor studio/guest room unit.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 23, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
-
Andrew Junius, representing Project Sponsor
- Gave a quick summary about the history of the building.
Otis Turner
- What is significant about the application by Maven Investments is that it is carefully contrived in a thinly veiled business model to circumvent protections and optimize profits.
- No matter what your decision will be today, the fact is that eight affordable housing units will be removed from the rental market.
- That is because this business model calls for acquisition of suitable rental properties citywide for conversion to TIC’s and ultimate conversion of condos.
- This profit turning strategy is becoming epidemic and the tactics are deplorable.
Margaret Berry
- Respectfully asked the Commission to deny this proposal.
David Spiro
- Concerned about traffic and parking.
Terry Smith
- Asked Commission to deny this application.
Damion Willis
- Concerned with the removal of Unit B.
- Without having seen the drawings actually, now having been given a chance to see the drawings, it appears at minimum that the building out of the unit is going to encroach the stairwell space for people to have ingress and egress, among other things.
- Also, asked the Commission to prohibit the Project Sponsor from evicting any tenants.
Deborah Doyle
- Urged the Commission to be very sensitive to letting some of the housing stock go in the neighborhood. Where are the people who do the service work in the City going to live?
Christine (unclear last name)
- Concerned about the loss of housing at a time when there is a shortage of affordable housing.
Carl Rodriguez
- I live in the exact same unit that is now being turned into a garage at 1865 Clay. They just bought out our building. I’m probably the first to go.
- Take a real good look at what they are about to do.
- I am opposed to the project.
Pat Boscovich
- The building was originally built as a six-unit building in 1914 with three levels of occupancy—two units on a floor (second, third and fourth floor), a social room at the front and a meeting room in the middle of the building.
- The meeting room got flipped into a unit.
- During Urban Renewal, the city caught them and told them to remove the two units on the ground floor because it violated the Fire Code and the Planning Code.
- They went through an appeal process (to a body that no longer exists) and got permission to keep on unit on the ground floor, which made it a 7- unit building and a guest room.
- I don’t know if it had a kitchen or not, but it was shown with a half bath.
- I’m pretty sure that guest room was not a unit.
MOTION: To take DR and approve allowing the conversion of the existing guest room on the first level to a unit and eliminate the existing unit on the ground floor and the rest as proposed.
AYES: Antonini, Hughes and W. Lee
NAYES: S. Lee, Alexander, and Olague
ABSENT: Bradford-Bell
RESULT: Motion Failed
ACTION: Continue to September 15, 2005
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, Olague, and W. Lee
ABSENT: Bradford-Bell
25. 2005.0375D (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)
1122 GREEN STREET - north side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0122 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.28.9990, proposing to 1) enlarge the garage (previously approved but not yet constructed) internally to accommodate three cars, 2) remove and reconfigure (replace) the exterior front stairs, 3) make several minor modifications to portions of the front and side facades, and 4) remodel portions of the interior of the building, primarily the lower floor apartment, of a three-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal would result in the creation of three off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 16, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Jamie Cherry, Discretionary Review requestor
- We are here today because the egregious violations of San Francisco’s Planning process have caused disruption in our neighborhood for over three years.
- The original permit for this structure was approved three years ago. It called for a 500 square foot garage and nothing more.
- There is no question that work was done beyond the scope of the original permit.
- No matter what arguments are placed before you today, the work was done without a permit and without City review or neighborhood notification.
Katherine Courtney
- Ideally this building permit should be denied.
- There has been an egregious violation.
- This should not be able to be tolerated--this degree of expansion of scope of work.
- We are concerned about setting precedent for tolerating the degree of violations that have occurred here.
- We are coming to you because we are absolutely frightened about the precedence that this type of project, this type of work, is causing in the City.
- We should not have to do this, but we really have to draw the line somewhere.
- We are asking to determine what is appropriate when a developer exceeds the scope of work as flagrantly as done here.
Chris Arrett
- This project has abused the whole planning process.
- This abuse is no different than a mugging, graffiti on a building or a car theft. It is against the law, and it is a violation to the whole social contract.
- There are rules and regulations governing the submission of building permit applications and their review on approval. Those rules and regulations need to be observed.
Richard Learner
- They bulldozed three trees without any permit.
- They bulldozed the trees a day after explicitly being told by Russian Hill Community Association members that these trees were protected.
- They were healthy trees in the prime of life.
- The destruction was deliberate, not accidental.
- This sponsor cannot be granted the opportunity to proceed with a massive process. They should be limited to the 2002 application.
Alton Toy
- My concern is the seismic impact it might have on my property since my property is down slope of this project.
Joanne Allen
- I fear this case really sets a precedent, and I feel that the City needs to place more controls so that this type of situation does not occur at the end.
- Apparently the remedy to illegal construction, or construction that go beyond the scope of an original permit, is simply to issue a revised permit.
Margie (no last name stated)
- Numerous misleading statements, made by the representative in order to persuade this committee to grant a permit, concerns me. Obviously, we don not have the time to go into each one.
- For example, in his June 7th, 2005 letter to this committee, Mr. Gladstone states, “there is no doubt that the neighbors have unreasonably delayed this project.”
- He’s speaking of course about the Russian Hill Community Association.
- This comment is like a burglar blaming a property owner for leaving a window open.
John Bardis
- What we have here is an application that went on with several extensions, and then you have these application extensions that were used as a cover to do the valuations that were approved over this period.
- He urged the Commission to reject the application.
Brett Gladstone, representing Project Sponsor
- Responded to some of the concerns expressed by the previous speakers, and also gave a very brief report regarding the project.
- Gave a general description of the project,
- Urged Commission to approve the permit.
Bill (unclear last name)
- Let the project move forward.
Penelope Clark
- I feel that this project itself is a good one.
Jeff Thorn
- Opposed the project.
- Lynn Jefferson
- Urged the Commission to approve the project.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the voluntary conditions number 5 and 6 – The applicant will install new street trees of a more mature size, the 32 gallon box rather than the usual 15 gallon box; and he won’t install them perpendicular to the garage.
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
26. 2004.1161D (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)
1060 GILMAN AVENUE - north side between Hawes and Griffith Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 4937 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application No. 2004.03.03.7628, proposing to construct a three-story single-family dwelling on the existing vacant lot. The subject property is located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family District) and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Barbara (unclear last name), Discretionary Review Requestor
- First I would like to present a letter from my neighbor dated May 5, 2004.
- This letter bears my neighbor’s signature, who has been deceased for over 23 years. This is a fraudulent letter.
- I have never reviewed any plans.
- Asked the Commission for a continuance
Alvin Jones
- In support of the Discretionary Review application.
No name stated, representing Project Sponsor
- We tried to make as many good neighbor gestures as possible and I respectfully request that the Commission not take discretionary review.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
27a. 2004.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)
1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in an the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District (“NCD”) and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization for use size in excess of 3,000 square feet for a music training facility (“Music City"), with a Full-Service Restaurant and Bar with live entertainment, also requiring a Variance for off-street parking and usable open space for an upper-floor group-housing use.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 23, 2004 instructing the Project Sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remained open.
NOTE: On September 23, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to October 28, 2004.
NOTE: On October 28, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to November 18, 2004.
NOTE: On November 18, 2004, the Commission entertained a motion of intent to disapprove by a vote +6–0. Commissioner William Lee was absent. Final Language: December 9, 2004.
NOTE: On December 9, 2004, Commission tabled the item at the call of the Chair. Item to be re-noticed for a new hearing at a (non-specific) later date.
(continued from Regular Meeting of June 23, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
-
Jamie Ross
- Opposed continuance
Daniel Marcarian
- Requested a continuance until September.
Wanda Chinn
- Requested a continuance until September.
- There has not been proper notification to the neighborhood.
Rudy Colombini
- I have met with many of my neighbors, both supporters and those in opposition.
- Many people like those at Unlock have been willing to discuss with us their reasons and oppositions.
- While I do not agree with them, my proposed institution will reduce crime in Fern Alley and Bush Street.
- I can promise you we will be good neighbors.
- I have gone out of my way to appease my two adjacent neighbors.
Scott Emblidge
- I think it is a fabulous project. It is a project where there has been extraordinary attempt to deal with the issues that came before this Commission before and extraordinary attempt to reach out to the community involving rehearsal space, studio and housing.
- Those existing uses will be maintained and the over all project enhanced by the vacant space becoming vitalized in this neighborhood.
- They suggested a series of mitigation measures to the properties and those sound measures have been incorporated.
- Mr. Colombini, has created a buffer zone and replace that with storage space in other words space where there will be no sound that could transfer from a legal point of view. I just want to emphasize what they have done is gone far beyond what the law requires.
- The second mayor concern was the possibility of noise on Fern Street and how that could affect the neighbors.
- They have taken a number of extraordinary steps to address that. Already they have replaced the windows with sound rated windows.
- They have plans to take the entry door and make it a double entry door that will lock out sound.
Sue Hestor
- I have produced a chronology that illustrates some problems with the project.
- The basic project had a categorical exemption in May 1994.
- It does not say Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, whatever that is. And the recording capabilities were added in the staff report in November 2004.
- In November of 2004 you voted to take an intent to disapprove and on the December 9, you continued it, because Mr. Yarney asked for the courtesy of the time to prepare, even though I think the Commission was ready to disapprove it on its own motion.
Wanda Chin, Unlock
- The main thing you probably already know is that Unlock opposed this project because of safety issues in the streets. We deal with frail elderly and we have staff that works 24 hours.
- Safety is our main concern.
- It would be interesting to se if there is a study regarding safety issues as it relates in terms of crime rate on different types of establishment come in.
Jamie Rossi
- The first thing we did was to sent out a letter to the all the residents living in the two block radius of this place, asking for their input.
- We walked around, we talked to merchants, we talked to neighbors, and we have over 160 letters of support.
Daniel Marcarian
Concerned about noise and traffic.
Jason Bruno
- I cannot image a more ideal place to learn and play music.
Carla Rossi
- In favor of project.
Bob Tome
- In favor of project.
Robert Garcia
- Opposed to project.
Keith (unclear Last name)
- In favor of project.
Tom (unclear last name)
- Opposed to project.
Nancy James
- I think City Music is a fantastic idea for San Francisco.
Albert Alvarado
- Opposed to project.
Lisa Rodery
- Believes this is a wonderful project. It is important to me and important to the culture of San Francisco.
Bob Rose
- This project is something well needed and something that is missing now and has been taken away from our public schools.
Angela Barron
- In favor of project.
John (unclear last name)
- In favor of project.
Ruben Wolf
- This neighborhood could really use something of this nature to bring more light to the people.
Rosemary (unclear last name)
- In favor of project.
Bob Townsend
- In favor of project.
Unclear name
- In favor of project.
David Brown
- In favor of project.
No name stated
- Asked the Commission to approve the project.
ACTION: Approved as modified to address the hours
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Antonini, Hughes, Olague,
W. Lee
MOTION: 17063
27b. 2002.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)
1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District (“NCD”) and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Off-Street Parking and Usable Open Space Variances sought in conjunction with the conversion of existing tourist hotel rooms to group housing (residential hotel rooms) and for a Full-service Restaurant and Bar and music training facility (“Music City”) with no off-street parking and no outdoor open area.
NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Acting Zoning Administrator continued the matter to September 23, 2004.
Public comment remained open.
NOTE: On September 23, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to October 28, 2004.
NOTE: On October 28, 2004, without a hearing, the item was continued to November 18, 2004.
NOTE: On November 18, 2004, the Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing with an intent to disapprove the Variance.
NOTE: On December 9, 2004, the Zoning Administrator tabled the matter indefinitely. Item to be re-noticed for a new hearing at a (non-specific) later date.
(continued from Regular Meeting of June 23, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): Same as item 18.
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) Directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
Adjournment: 10:49 p.m.
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2006.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague and S. Lee
ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell
