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

Skip to page body
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

October 20, 2005

October 20, 2005



Meeting Minutes


Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 20, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting


COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  Sue Lee; Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; Shelley Bradford Bell; Kevin Hughes; Christina Olague and William L. Lee




STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Rick Crawford; Jonathan Purvis; Glenn Cabreros; Sharon Young; Michael E. Smith; Delvin Washington; Sara Vellve; Paul Maltzer; Mark Luellen; Joy Navarrete; Sara Dennis; Linda D. Avery – Commission Secretary.




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.         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.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

(proposed for Continuance to October 27, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander & Olague


            2.         2005.0796T                                                                        (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

c-3 District Parking Control Modifications- Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 151, 151.1, 154, 155, 155.5, 166 and 167 to impose new requirements in C-3 Zoning Districts regarding permitted off-street parking and loading, allowed off-street freight loading and service vehicle spaces, bicycle parking, car sharing, to separate parking costs from housing costs and adopting environmental findings and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (proposed for Continuance to October 27, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

                        ABSENT:          Alexander & Olague


                                                                                                                      (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

3.         425 First Street (One Rincon Hill) - Motion to Waive Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fees per Section 318.3(f) - The Planning Commission approved a project at 425 First Street on August 4, 2005, that includes approximately 710 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupiable square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project construction is divided into two phases, the first of which would require a payment of approximately $4,580,000. The project sponsor has entered into a Waiver Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to secure the formation of a Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) District and to take all necessary steps to support the construction of a portion of the public improvements, equal to the value owed by the sponsor, and described in the Planning Code 318.6 and in the Rincon Hill Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation:

            (proposed for Continuance to October 27, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander & Olague


            4.         2005.1270DDD                                                                   (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

4231-33 24TH STREET - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 044 in Assessor’s Block 6505 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.19.9187, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition on a nonconforming mixed-use building, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:   Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander & Olague


5.         2004.0646E                                                                           (R. DEAN: (415) 558-5980)

263-265 Dolores Street - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - construction of three-unit residential building. The proposed project is the construction of a new four-story, three-unit residential building to the rear of an existing three-story, three-unit residential building.  The project would result in a total of six off-street parking spaces provided at ground level in the new building.  The project would require demolition of an existing carport/storage structure.  The proposed project site is located on the eastside of Dolores Street between 15th and 16th Streets, Assessor’s Block 3556, Lot 30.  The project site is located in the RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and within the 40-x Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)

            (proposed for Continuance to December 8, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander & Olague




            6.         Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. Comment on a couple things of importance that relates in particular to some moves that have been expressed by members of the Board of Supervisors in regards to inclusionary housing--some possible changes; and particularly to an editorial in today’s Examiner which talks a little bit about this.
  2. We are in the process of considering Better Neighborhoods and Eastern Neighborhoods.
  3. My comments are that this – everything has to work together and that we have to look at the big picture and not center on merely one part of it as in the inclusionary housing.
  4. I’m afraid we could be developing the perfect storm that could eliminate a lot of housing demand in San Francisco.
  5. We could conceivably see and increase the percentage of inclusionary housing at the level at which the inclusionary housing might be assessed.
  6. I spent some time reading the Downtown Plan as well as read – which was an excellent document - the Housing Inventory document.  An interesting thing was pointed out, and that was that we had been building affordable housing.
  7. In fact, from 1996 to 2002, 375 units were built which represents 25% of all units built in San Francisco during that period.  That does not include public housing.
  8. You cannot exclude certain parts of the housing market and say we are only going to consider this part of it.  I personally feet that these issues may have a very deleterious effect as I mentioned earlier on the production of new housing.  But more importantly, I think that they do not address the real need.  The real need is the so-called middle class or working class of the City who makes too much money to qualify for the present inclusionary housing and yet do not have enough income to afford market rate housing.  These things only drive the market rates up higher.

Commissioner Bradford-Bell:

  1. This Tuesday at the Redevelopment Agency, several members from the Hunters Point project Area Committee spoke out in strong protest against the status of the Environmental Impact Report in the Bayview, and I feel there are some complications surrounding that.
  2. I have spoken to Director Macris about it.
  3. I know that Director Rosen will be at the PAC meeting.
  4. There is a meeting at Redevelopment today to talk about it and find out where we are.
  5. I am requesting that we calendar an informational item under the Director’s Report for next week, because I have a lot of questions and I am hoping that we can have that on the agenda next week to get an update of what has transpired, what our role is, where the EIR is at the moment, what needs to be done, what kind of solutions we are putting forward because the community is very concerned that they are being asked to wait on the EIR but Planning is still doing projects in the community.




7.         Director’s Announcements



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


  1. The Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District amendments sponsored by Supervisor Alioto-Pier to allow an expansion of University High School were finally passed by the Board two days ago on Tuesday, along with the legislative setback line amendments along Clement Street to allow the Beth Shalom project to proceed. Both of these were passed unanimously consistent with your recommendations.
  2. 1070 Sanchez Street – an item that appears on your calendar today--a Discretionary Review. This is a project on which the CEQA document was appealed.  That appeal was held on Tuesday at the Board.  The Board unanimously upheld the Department’s determination that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review.
  3. In our actions category:  A number of changes have been made to medical cannabis dispensaries.  Largely in keeping with your recommendation, Supervisor Mirkarimi’;s proposed ordinance has progressed.  It’s been reviewed by the Budget and Finance Committee.  It ‘s been reviewed at the full Board of Supervisors and continues now until next week for a potential adoption on first reading.
  4. A couple of changes to that ordinance in keeping with your recommendations, the Supervisor has made allowances for two dispensaries in the City to operate on a 24-hour basis.
  5. A number of changes include the modification of controls to not permit dispensaries in either M District or in South of Market District.  This is a change with a substantial geographic element to it.
  6. With respect to this ordinance, there has been an amendment to require that you hold a mandatory discretionary review hearing for all medical dispensary permits filed within the City.
  7. Moving on to Introductions:
  8. Supervisor Duffy has introduced an ordinance that would modify the zoning controls on 24th Street in Noe Valley in order to allow a limited number of full service restaurants.  Right now the code does not allow any new full service restaurant in Noe Valley.
  9. This ordinance will be coming before you in the next several months.
  10. Supervisor Daly introduced an ordinance that deals not with the Planning Code, but rather with the Subdivision Code.  Although this will not come to you, it is relevant.
  11. This proposed ordinance would require all condominium conversions that are processed through the city’s lottery to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the General Plan.  Right now the Planning Commission only review conversion projects of five or six-units.  This would effectively include three and four-unit condo conversions as well.
  12. Supervisor Daly also introduced a draft of an ordinance regarding inclusionary housing amendment to take the existing percentages of 10 and 12% for as of right and conditional permitted projects respectively, and increase those percentages to 15 and 20%.
  13. Supervisor McGoldrick also introduced an ordinance to take the threshold at which the inclusionary housing requirement is assessed--which is currently projects of ten-units or more--and lower that threshold to five or more units.
  14. In other words, multi-family housing projects of five or more units would be subject to your inclusionary housing policies.


BoA: None


9.         Discussion of Dwelling Unit Mergers


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Meeting held. No Action.  President Lee instructed staff to contact known individuals and organizations that are concerned about this issue so they know about what we are doing.  Staff urged the commissioners to call [us], because without your thoughts it is going to be hard to come up with a revised plan.  Without a vote it was decided to bring this back on November 17, 2005.




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.





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




            10.        2004.0895C                                                                    (R. Crawford: (415) 558-6358)

4 Craut Street - south side (at Mission and Trumbell Streets, Assessor's Block 5868 Lots 006 and 007) - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1 to develop a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in area in a NC-2 district.  The Project would construct a three-story mixed-use building with 18 dwelling units and 1,500 square feet of commercial space.  The subject property is 14,076 square feet in area.  This project lies within a NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval



Malcolm Morrison, Morrison Architects

  1. The lot, in short, is a dumping ground and has been for many years.  Even though it has been fenced, the fence does not last very long.

Name no stated

  1. We did not receive any notice in regard to this project.
  2. We have no plans of the building
  3. The neighborhood should be notified properly.


ACTION:            Approved as amended:

Pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Code, the Project shall be subject to the terms and requirements of the First Source Hiring Program.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

                        MOTION:        17125




            11a.      2004.1272DDV                                                                   (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3730, proposing to convert the existing single-family dwelling at 600 Kansas Street into a two-family dwelling following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots, with off-street parking provided on the newly created adjacent lot, subject to granting of a parking variance by the Zoning Administrator; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has      been submitted.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Without hearing, continued to November 17, 2005.

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague


            11b.      2004.1272DDV                                                                   (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2101-2103 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3740, proposing to construct a new two-family dwelling on a newly created lot at the southwest corner of Kansas and 18th Streets following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has      been submitted.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Without hearing, continued to November 17, 2005.

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague


            11c.      2004.1272DDV                                                                    (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4029 - Request for Parking and Rear yard Variances to subdivide a 5,000 square-foot lot into two lots, with an existing single-family dwelling on one 2,950 square-foot-lot fronting solely on 18th Street and a proposed new two-family dwelling to be built at the corner on a 2,050 square-foot lot.  The rear yard for the existing building would    be provided within a 15-foot setback on the east side (between the existing and proposed buildings) and no off-street parking would be proposed for this lot, requiring both rear yard and parking variances; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)


                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           The Zoning Administrator continued this item to November 17, 2005.


            12.        2005.0672DDD                                                           (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

324 LIBERTY STREET - north side between Church and Sanchez Streets.  Assessor's Block 3605, Lot 042A  - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0502 1301 to remove an existing rear deck and construct a one story addition to the rear, in an 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.






Claire, Property Owner

  1. We wanted to take advantage of our back yards and view and create space for guests and the expansion for our family.
  2. The design is mindful of the neighborhood character and has the least impact possible to its surrounding.
  3. Our outreach included meeting with the community review board--and they felt comfortable with our proposal.
  4. The proposed addition adds 245 square feet that includes a master bedroom with closet and a bathroom.
  5. There will also be a deck on top of the addition connected to the second floor.
  6. All windows in the house will be upgraded to double panels.

ACTION:            Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague


13.        2005.0751D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

733 27TH AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.12.3640, proposing to construct a new third floor, a rear horizontal addition and a side horizontal addition to the existing two-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Without hearing, continued to December 15, 2005.

AYES:              Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

                        ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague


            14.        2005.0270D                                                                       (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

655 43RD AVENUE - west side between Anza and Balboa Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 1586 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.08.03.0516, proposing to construct a two-level horizontal addition at the first and second floors, two-level decks, and egress stairs at the rear of a three-story, single-family dwelling in an 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.


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague


            15.        2005.0622D                                                                          (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

19 ROSEWOOD DRIVE - northeast side between Brentwood Avenue and Ravenwood Drive; Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 3039 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.03.21.7964, proposing to alter and add to the existing two-story over basement, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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



            16.        2004.0603D                                                                        (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

195 MIRALOMA DRIVE- east side at Yerba Buena Avenue, Lot 043 in Assessor’s Block 2973A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.04.05.9206, proposing to construct a horizontal addition that would partially infill the courtyard at the rear of a single-family dwelling and construct a horizontal addition at the garage level at the front of the building, located in a RH-1(D) [Residential, House, One-Family (Detached)] District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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



Ray Cole, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Their soil report indicates there are four or five unstable feet that they are going to build this on.
  2. The planner saw the lateral movement in the retaining wall.
  3. This is a hazardous site.  And because it is a hazardous site we agree with the soil engineers report which cautious, and I quote “utmost care should be exercised in avoiding damage to the other property.”
  4. The tiers should be carried five feet into rock from 10 to 20 feet below existing grade.
  5. Despite these clear recommendations the structural engineer does not indicate the depth of the piers or the size of the piers.
  6. They failed to show drainpipe termination and failed to indicate details of drainage.

Ken Snyder, Property Owner

  1. I think we have entered into this project with a spirit of cooperation.   We provided information to each of our neighbors.
  2. The elements themselves will have a minimal impact on the neighbors.
  3. The dining room in the rear is a partial courtyard on level ground.
  4. The six-foot addition to the front of the house is just to provide a balcony and extend the room underneath.
  5. We provided information including the soil report.


ACTION:            Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES:              Antonini, Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Bradford Bell


17a.      2005.0810D                                                                        (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

1070 SANCHEZ STREET - west side between 24th and Elizabeth Street, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3654 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.05.27.5002, proposing to demolish a one-story over garage single-family dwelling, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:   Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition.



Alice Barkley, representing the Project Sponsor

  1. There are three major components that make this building unsound
  2. One is that the roof rafters are inadequate.  In order to fix it, you have to take the roof off so that you can get in the structure.  In evaluating the replacement cost, we don’t want to get rid of the interior and then get into areas that are not permissible because they may be considered cosmetic.
  3. The second is the foundation.  The mortar has absolutely no integrity left.  The foundation cannot support the vertical force.  It has to be replaced.
  4. Finally, some of the major beams and columns in the basement area that support the building—they are not even continuous—are sort of spliced together.  There is a need for a steel frame to replace that so that the building is rehabilitated.  If it is rehabilitated it will be able to support the upper floor.



Tracy Hughes, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. The pine tree is indeed rare.  We only have four or five of them in our urban forest in our neighborhoods.  
  2. What is going on here with this project is--even though they say they want to protect this tree--they’ re going to take out 40% of the roots.
  3. If they are concerned about saving the tree, they need to redesign the plans.

Collins Brennan, Property Owner

  1. Requested the Commission to approve the demolition and new construction of his property.  
  2. This is the only way economically we can live in Noe Valley.
  3. This house has met all the criteria for demolition.   Please approve our design.

Lori Brennan

  1. Asked Commission to approve their project.

Angus McCarthy

  1. Spoke in support of the Brennans and in favor of this project.

Joe Buttler, Architect

  1. At Monday’s hearing, the Secretary of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board acknowledged to the Board of Supervisors that in his personal opinion there are buildings here of a quality to support designation of a local historic district.
  2. According to the Planner, the Department can only conclude the building is sound because the costs included in the soundness report are base on shortcomings in the existing house that are not needed repairs to make the building habitable as per Department’s requirements.
  3. He also stated that in many places in the report are devoted to structural deficiencies with little discussion of the building’s other problems.  
  4. Asked the Commission to take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition permit.

Joe O’Donoghue

  1. First you should not that Collin Brennan is not an RBA member.
  2. Supports both the family and this project.


ACTION:            Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee

                        NAYES:            Hughes and Olague                   


17b.      2004.0811D                                                                          (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

1070 SANCHEZ STREET, west side between 24th and Elizabeth Street, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3654 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.27.5004, proposing to construct a three-story over garage two-family dwelling, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications


SPEAKERS:     Same as Item 17a.

ACTION:            Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified: 

In addition to the language that the property owner will implement the recommendations outlined in the arborist report and will further implement arborist implementation before and post construction to preserve the viability of the 33-inch diameter Norfolk Island pine tree to be retained at the rear of the project site.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

                        NAYES:            Olague


18.        2005.0258D                                                            (D. WASHINGTON: (415) 558-6443)

74 WHITNEY STREET - west side of Whitney Street. Assessor's Block 6654 Lot 020 - Request for Discretionary Review to construct a new third-story to an existing two-story single family residence in an 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.



Arthur Richie, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Very concerned and opposed about the loss of natural light to his building as a result of this project.

Vince Ammirato, representing the Project Sponsor and Architect

- Gave an overall presentation of the project design.                     

Frank Schiler, Property Owner

  1. Wants to remains in the City.
  2. Wants to be able to provide his family with a reasonable amount of living space and wants to live within his means.

ACTION:            Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague


19.        2004.0876C                                                                       (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

2000 VAN NESS AVENUE- northeast corner at the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Jackson Street; Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 0595 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.6 and 303 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) antennas and related equipment cabinets on the roof of an existing 100-foot tall commercial structure, known as the Medical Arts Building, as part of Cingular’s wireless telecommunications network within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 6, 2005)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

                        NAYES:            Bradford-Bell

                        MOTION:           17126


20.        2001.1149E                                                                      (P. MALTZER: (415) 558-5977)

SUNOL/NILES DAM REPLACEMENT PROJECT - Consider authorizing the Environmental Review Officer to take supplemental public testimony at an additional hearing on the Draft EIR for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's Sunol/Niles Dam Replacement Project in a jurisdiction outside the City and County of San Francisco.  The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a hearing on the draft EIR on December 1, 2005.  The Planning Commission may also authorize the Environmental Review Officer to hold additional public hearings, as provided in San Francisco Administrative Code Sections 31.05 and 31.14.  Because the Sunol/Niles Dam Replacement Project will affect the area in and around the Sunol Valley, which is near the city of Fremont in Alameda County, the Environmental Review Officer recommends holding an additional public hearing in Fremont and is requesting authorization from the Planning Commission to do so.

Preliminary recommendation:  Authorize the Environmental Review Officer to conduct an additional public hearing on the Draft EIR for the Sunol/Niles Dam Replacement Project in Fremont, CA.


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Approved authorization of the Environmental Review Officer to conduct an additional public hearing on the Draft EIR for the Sunol/Niles Dame Replacement Project in Fremont, CA.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Hughes

MOTION:           17127


21.        2005.0301L                                                                   (M. Luellen:  (415) 558-6478)

2151 Van Ness Avenue, St. Brigid Church - southwest corner of Van Ness Avenue and Broadway.  Assessor’s Block 0575, Lot 15  - The proposal is to designate the property as City Landmark No. 252.  Constructed between 1902 and 1904, St. Brigid Church was built in a “Richardsonian Romanesque Revival” style over several phases.  The subject property is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District, and an 80-D Height and Bulk District.  Request for the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution approving the designation of St. Brigid Church and recommending to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the designation that they initiated on April 1, 2005.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution supporting landmark designation.



Joe Dignan

  1. We are dedicated to saving and preserving St. Brigid for future generations of San Franciscans.
  2. The Archdiocese of San Francisco has sold and closed escrow on St. Brigid Church to a newly formed limited liability company
  3. The Diocese has determined to remove much of the historic fabric of the interior of the building

Anthony Jones, representing the Academy of Our University and 2151 Van Ness Avenue, LLC

  1.   On behalf of these two entities, I’m stating for the record an objected to the landmark designation being applied to St. Brigid Church.

Alice Barkley

  1. About three hours ago the Archdiocese asked me to speak on this matter.  I have just read the staff report.
  2. The Archdiocese has sold this building to the Academy of Art, so it is not longer the owner.
  3. This building will no longer be a church.
  4. The Archdiocese objects to the definition to the interior space.
  5. First, Article 10 does not go into the interior of private property.  Only public property that can have interiors designated.
  6. All of the items listed are the personal property of the church.
  7. You cannot tell the church that they cannot take their personal property away.
  8. I think you have to be very cautious when you start to reach into the personal property of the church, because there is still a separation between church and state.
  9. You cannot take their property and put it in the public domain.

John Gregson, Committee to Save St. Brigid Church

  1. There maybe something there regarding easily movable property and things, but we clearly admit we are in somewhat new ground here and that is going to be worked out with the Planning Department as we go forward.
  2. We would also like to thank the Academy of Art for publicly endorsing the preservation of this magnificent gift for all future generations.
  3. Interiors of private buildings can be landmarked.  The Garden Court of the Sheridan Palace Hotel is one.

Joe O’Donoghue, Residential Builders

  1. The Church is no more a church
  2. This is emphasized by the cavalier attitude the Archdiocese took toward its parishioners.
  3. Let me also say that a fixture is a fixture, is a fixture.
  4. Just like the stained glass windows that they might remove.  They’re fixtures.
  5. What the church is doing is destroying the values and shows a contempt for culture when it decided that they are ignoring the great mason work that went into this.
  6. If you are going to be an art, art is supposed to be revolutionary, set standards for values.  They also have an obligation to set new standards to cultural not to manifestation of materialism.
  7. At least we are honest about it we are for profit.

Vincent Marsh

  1. For a number of years, I staffed the landmarks program and was retained by the St Brigid Committee to do the nomination for the church.
  2. Passed forward a letter from the Friends of 1800 Market Street in support of a nomination and indicates that this property was placed on the national register in 1995.  In that nomination the interior and exterior features of the building were called out.
  3. A national register nomination as well as a local nomination does not restrict the use of a property, the maintenance or sale of a property as evidenced by the fact the property is already transferred. 
  4. The Planning Code does indicate that a property such as this has special character or historical architectural interest and value as a landmark and clearly St. Brigid meets this criteria
  5. Urged the Commission to endorse the landmark case report, motions and resolutions as drafted.


  1. We have been strong supporters of the efforts to save and preserve this church.  The nomination does a very good job of explaining the features of the building that make it worthy of being a landmark.
  2. The recognition is absolutely worth it.
  3. It is at a very pivotal time right not with it changing hands and there are a lot of opportunities here for the new owner to develop the property.
  4. If it is not landmarked, there is no protection for any of the features.

Sue Maywall

  1. Addressed the argument about the ownership of the property, we give donations to the church not the diocese.

Steve Steelman

  1. Why is the building is not worthy of historic preservation?
  2. The fabric of the building includes both the interior and exterior of the building.
  3. Harry Clark who is a stained glass artist from the early part of the 20th Century in Ireland made the windows.  Every single window that he made in Ireland is preserved - is designated as worthy of historic preservation.

Dennis Conrad

  1. A church is more than just a building or a house of worship.  It is a monument of culture.
  2. If we don’t take care of them, we don’t deserve our future.

January Robinson

  1. Supports the preservation of the church.
  2. It’s exterior is worthy of contemplation, but it’s only upon entering the sacred edifice that it is real.  This is when beauty may be appreciated.

Tom Christian

  1. The new owner of the property is probably the best chance to save St. Brigid.
  2. The Academy of Art has paid for the property and has already publicly stated they will pay for its seismic retrofit.
  3. Retrofitting by its very nature can be invasive.
  4. The church has been remodeled since it was first build.
  5. It is not as it is shown in these pictures today.
  6. I believe there already exists a recorded instrument at the recorder’s office at the Archdiocese recorded prior to selling the property where a man posed upon the property a moratorium on its demolition for a period of time that survives the sale of the property and is on title as a deed restriction.
  7. It is my understanding that the Academy of Art fought very hard with the Archdiocese to assure the same stained glass windows stayed with the property after it was sold.

Ed Conlan, speaking on behalf of the Academy of art

  1. The Academy has stated it is their intent to preserve the church in its entirety
  2. The stained glass windows will be kept intact.
  3. The church has been neglected for 12 years and we would like to get it cleaned up and back operational and open to the public again.


  1. Is in favor of landmarking the church.
  • Richards
  1. Asked the Commission to approve the application.


  1. Reviewed the provisions of Article 10 of the Planning Code as it relates to the preservation of building interiors.
  2. Spoke in favor of the Commission’s support of this application.

ACTION:           Approved as amended:  Number 7 was split and created Number 8.  Numbers 9, 10, and 11 are new.

8.         The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors protect by legislation or ordinance the following interior features to the full extent of the law.


The interior features to be preserved include: the dark wood paneled narthex, the nave with lower side aisles, transepts and rear choir gallery; the chancel, sacristy, and other spaces at the west end; the stilted-arch arcades; the columns with Romanesque capitals (clad in spirally striped marble): the shallow arch ceiling; the stringcourse of angels and heads circumscribing the main space between the arcade and clerestory, the 10-foot high clerestory statues of angels with outspread wings (sculpted by John A. McQuarrie, alike but in different poses representing the opening sentences of the Mass); the marble sculptures representing the Stations of the Cross, the rounded chancel and half-dome ceiling; the lincrusta wainscoting; the carved-end oak pews; the silver-colored pipes announcing the rear gallery and organ loft; the Rufatti organ; and the stained glass windows (Harry Clarke Studios; Dublin, Ireland).

Other interior features to be preserved also include the wood carved pulpit, wooden interior doors, baptismal font, confessionals, holy water font (angel wings), marble altar, decorative wood floor, decorative wall behind and above the tabernacle, the wooden wainscot, and the church bell.

The interior features to be preserved include not only items that have been annexed to the realty by some type of permanent attachment, but also those items that are technically moveable but have been in place of a long time, such as statues.  An inclusive list “Historic inventory of Interior Features” is included in the designation report.

9.         The designation of St. Brigid Church meets the required findings of Planning Code Section 101.1 in the following manner:

10.         The proposed Project will further Priority Policy No. 7, that landmarks and historic buildings be preserved, such as the designation of the St. Brigid Church as City Landmark No 252.  Landmark designation will help to preserve a significant historic resource associated with patterns of social and cultural history in San Francisco. 

11.        That the proposed project will have no significant effect on the other seven Priority Policies: the City’s supply of affordable housing, existing housing or neighborhood character, public transit or neighborhood parking, preparedness to protect against injury and loss of life in an earthquake, commercial activity, business or employment, or public parks and open space.


AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

                        RESOLUTION: 17128


            22.        2004.0027E                                                                 (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

900 MINNESOTA - Public Hearing Draft Environmental Impact Report - The proposed project would include the development of approximately 142 residential units, approximately 6,300 gross square feet (gsf) of office space, about 2,100 gsf of café space, and a 168-space underground parking garage on an approximately two-acre site in San Francisco’s Central Waterfront district. The project site is located on the northern half of the 900 block of Minnesota Street, between 20th and 22nd Streets, at the street addresses of 900, 910-12 Minnesota Street and 833 Indiana Street (Assessor’s Block 4106; Lot 27). The project site, which is currently unoccupied, consists of six buildings totaling approximately 144,000 square feet; a surface parking area; and three gardens and other landscaping, that make up the C. Schilling & Co. Wine Cellars complex, a contributor to the Dog patch Historic District. The site was most recently the headquarters of the Esprit de Corp. clothing company. The proposed project would be developed through adaptive reuse of two large brick buildings, demolition of four structures, and new construction. The portion of the project site for which new development is proposed is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, and the southwestern portion of the site is within an RH-3 (Residential, House Three-Family) District. The site is also located within the Central Waterfront Better Neighborhoods Plan Area, and the Dogpatch Historic District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required.  Public hearing to receive comments only.

Note:  Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on October 25, 2005



Harry Collin

  1. Where is the public file for the public to read?  Can you show it to me here please?
  2. Why is it not here on the table so I could read it and maybe make some substantial comments?
  3. In the future I would like…; Any subject matter should be available for the public here on public display.

ACTION:           Meeting held.  No Action at this time.





6:00 P.M.


23.        2005.0524T                                                                           (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

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: Approve with Modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 6, 2005)

NOTE:   On August 4, 2005, following public testimony, the commission president directed that this item be calendared for discussion at all commission hearings through September 15, 2005 with possible action on September 15, 2005.

NOTE: On September 15, 2005, the commission continued the item to October 6, 2005 by a vote +4 –0.  Commissioners Hughes, Olague, and W. Lee were absent.   



Marilyn Amini

  1. This legislation has been substantially modified since it was formally introduced by Supervisor McGoldrick.
  2.    There have been no newspaper notices at all on this proposal.
  3. There are a lot of things wrong with this and I think if you are showing good faith to the public, it should be continued.

Unclear name

  1.    Opposes the continuance.

Tim Collins

  1. Urged that the Commission take the matter up tonight.

[Unclear name]

-   Please continue the item.

[Unclear name]

  1. If continued, do you lose the ability to make comments and hear those of us who have come here to speak?
  2. I’m confused that you are allowed this continuance, or do you simply miss the chance?

John Bardis

  1. Where did the ten pages of amendments come from? 
  2. Not from the legislative body
  3. Not from you.
  4. Then from whom?
  5. Your action today should be to continue it so the legislation can be sent back to the Board.   The Board should then submit those amendments on to the body and then have them come back to you.
  6. You should not proceed with this legislation.

Jeffrey Leibovitz

  1. I was a casual observer at two of these meetings where amendments were drafted; and at the first meeting just by chance.   I happened to meeting with the sponsor of a project and was invited to a meeting on this right on the spot.
  2. There have been substantive changes to the legislation, drafted and introduced by that committee.
  3. I am a firm believer in the public process.
  4. I believe the sponsor said at one of the hearings or one of the meetings that if the Planning Commission did not act on this, then it would be pulled from the Planning Commission and it would go through the legislative process of the Board of Supervisors regardless of what you do.
  5. I believe that was a threat.
  6. The reason I am asking you to continue this is because of the need for this to be digested by the public for the public’s consumption so that you can receive input back and then you can give that input to the Board’s committee of the Board of Supervisors who supposedly originated this.

Eric Coleman

  1. Supports the continuance

Alice Barkley

  1. I support the continuance.

Judy Berkowitz

  1. I too support the continuance.




Bernie Choden

  1. This is an abrogation of the Planning Commission’s duties.   Changing the Planning Code so it is all one fabric is more professional of the planning activity.
  2. If in fact there is a concern that it stays with the Board of Supervisors, there is much illegality to be concerned with.
  3. The question of impact fees, a problem with inverse condemnation.   That is very technical.
  4. Under the new text fees can be levied both on existing as well as proposed development.
  5. That can cause hardship and much need to have some process in regard to both harm we cause and paying out for that, as well as collecting fees from people who profit as a result of the public action of the public interest
  6. There needs to be some oversight in terms of legal due process that needs to be done.

Lois Scott, Vice President of the Planners Chapter of Local 21

  1. We believe that the 24-month limit is not going to be workable.   In our experience it takes longer.
  2. We were very concerned that the compressed time schedule not be used as an excuse for not having the Planning staff do it, but having outside consultants do it.
  3. My third comment is much more favorable in that the funding mechanism of considering funding the environmental review work along with a part of the Better Neighborhoods project funding is a very good idea.   We think this idea should be extended to all the work that Citywide Planning does.

Ellen Kernigan

  1. In spite of the contentions of the authors of the ordinance before you, it is evident that it truly is not necessary to replace the Planning Code with this suggestion to the Administrative Code.
  2. The Planning Department staff report of July 28, 2005 and the Housing Inventory Report of 2004 are two excellent proofs that were cited to you in September.
  3. The necessity for this proposal is clearly that of the originators.   That is to abrogate the power of the Planning Commission and the public power lieutenants in order to allow developers with the Planning Department to fulfill their view of San Francisco’s future.  A future that is first and foremost profit motivated without regard to the community at large to not only foot the bill, but to have to live with the results ever after.

Penelope Clark

  1. I’m here to speak about the first draft of the current draft that regards changes to the Planning Code.
  2. This proposed ordinance will now enable the Better Neighborhoods programs to move into older fully developed neighborhoods, which is going to cause great difficulties for those who already live there.
  3. If developers feel the process is too slow, it is frequently because they do not try to analyze and modify in advance the negative effects their projects may have with them on their neighbors and on the character of the neighborhood—which will result in DR’s being filed against their projects.

Hiroshi Fakuda

  1. If you go back to the original proposed ordinance, many people believe that we had three Better Neighborhood Plans in the past, which have been implemented and with some deal of success and that were done without any change in the Planning Codes.
  2. So why do we need this?
  3. Has the Planning Department made a study to let us know why we need this?

Robert Herman

  1. Speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Public Policy Committee of the AIA
  2. We have reviewed the proposed draft for Better Neighborhoods planning and implementation process dated October 24 and found it better than the earlier draft due to the following changes:
  3. The Plan Implementation Advisory Committee authority would now be limited to reviewing and advising changes to the state of the neighborhood reports provided by the Planning Department staff rather than reviewing individual projects within the plan area
  4. This prevents the drain on Planning Commission authority over project reviews and strengthens the certainty of the provisions of the Neighborhood Plan.
  5. Limiting the reduction of the building envelope of proposed projects to 5% under discretionary review procedures without eliminating affordable family size units ensures greater predictability for project sponsors and respects the intent of the neighborhood plans’ guidelines on height, bulk, and density.

Peter Cohen

  1. Speaking as an advocate for the legislation.
  2. I’ve been involved helping to draft this and working with the City and the Supervisors’ Office and many folks in this room for many months.
  3. There are six neighborhood plans currently underway with varying degrees of success as well as problems
  4. I think there is a need for consistency in our planning standards.
  5. That is what really seems to be the immediate urgency as well as projecting forward how the City is going to continue to do neighborhood planning in the future.
  6. This is really a package of good planning standards to try to achieve that consistency.

Tim Coleman, Housing Action Coalition

  1. What is this legislation in response to that started over two years ago?
  2. It came out of the ashes of the Prop A Housing bond when it was recognized that the City is not producing the housing it needs and in particular, affordable housing.

Judy Berkowitz, San Francisco Coalitions for Neighborhoods

  1. I draw your attention to [the fact that] there are still no findings.
  2. We don’t know why we need this legislation.
  3. Unfortunately, there is a downplay to CEQA.
  4. I urge you to please send this to the Board with a negative recommendation.
  5. One of the authors at this meeting even bemoaned the fact that the legislation had been taken over by, “downtown.”
  6. The process was deficient from the beginning.   No neighborhood activists were in on it.

Alice Barkley

  1. You are in a catch 22 situation and I would suggest you do this:
  2. Page one through line 19 of the ordinance is totally out of your hands.
  3. No matter what you do or say, nothing will be referred to you because it is not part of the Planning Code.
  4. I suggest that you recommend whatever you want to—no action or no recommendation—on the original legislation referred to you dated April, whatever day, 2005.
  5. And that you make absolutely no comment on the amended version that has not yet been introduced.
  6. When the amendment is introduced at the Land Use Committee, the public can ask the whole legislation to be referred based on that new amendment to you because that section is solidly within your jurisdiction.
  7. That means that the resolution before you has to be changed.

John Bardis

  1. You have been given ample testimony that you had a deficient process.
  2. Where is the evidence of any communication from the sponsor of the legislation to this commission that any amendments that have been made to the legislation that was originally referred to the Board?
  3. I would really be surprised how the City Attorney could be saying to you and advising you that you have before you legislation that has amendments that have been properly put before this City legislative process through the Board and then properly communicated to you.
  4. You don’t even have before you anything from the supervisor saying this is what he wanted.
  5. It came out of thin air.
  6. It didn’t come from the Department.
  7. It didn’t come from some body of evidence and these are the alternatives we considered and this is the best alternative and this is why it is the best alternative.
  8. You have nothing like that in your case file that was given to you for review.
  9. How can you possibly be making a decision, except out of thin air like it was created?

Fernando Marti

  1. I’m here to ask that you recommend this legislation to move forward to the Board of Supervisors.
  2. I am one of the people that was involved in working with supervisor McGoldrick in helping to create the original legislation
  3. We’ve been working on this for over two years.
  4. One of the things I want to reiterate is the urgency of moving forward with this.
  5. This legislation was begun by community members on the east side of the city, east side, south of Market, Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront
  6. Various folks from those neighborhoods are extremely concerned about the way and speed that planning is taking place in those neighborhoods.
  7. In particular with the rezoning and how we might be able to shape community benefits out of that.
  8. That was the initial impetus for creating this legislation and for creating a way of mandating good community planning by taking the best things out of the Better Neighborhoods, taking some of the ideas out of Rincon Hill – public benefits that came out of that.
  9. From the very beginning of the planning process we need to look at how we are going to pay for infrastructure, how we’re going to pay for housing.   Those things need to be incorporated into plans.
  10. That is why we in the Mission and the Dogpatch, Central Waterfront really began to put this together.   It is why we approached Supervisor McGoldrick, Supervisor Maxwell, supervisor Mirkarimi and really crafted something we think has really brought together a lot of the folks that will be affected in those Eastern neighborhoods and in the rezonings that are happening right now.

Jeffrey Leibovitz

  1. I live in the eastern SOMA and I wasn’t invited to participate.
  2. I’ve had an opportunity to review the legislation and I do believe that there are some good things in it.
  3. I’ve got some substantive changes I’d like in here and I don’t understand why we can’t incorporate them.
  4. [This legislation] called out for specific exemptions to several neighborhoods that have gone through community planning for the last four, five, six, seven, eight years.
  5. Why can’t the Eastern SOMA be incorporated into those exemptions so we can get on the process?
  6. When we began this, it was simple zoning controls to allow us to coexist with some pretty wild, wild west zoning in South Beach.
  7. The Special Use District that was created so that our new emerging neighborhood could exist and it’s flourished – and it has worked.
  8. So why do we have to mire ourselves down in this entire process?
  9. Please exempt us from the Better Neighborhoods process.

Stephen Battle.

  1. This whole process started two years ago when there was another piece of legislation introduced by Supervisor McGoldrick that was call Public Benefit Zoning that was completely unworkable.
  2. After he withdrew it he convened a group of people to come up with an alternative.   I was one of the people that was involved on and off over the last two years in that drafting group.
  3. I don’t think the legislation is perfect.   What it is is a compromise that gives and takes away and it has reached a balance that I think is appropriate and I think will work.
  4. I think the process tonight has been unfortunate because you didn’t get these amendments until last Friday and the form you got them in was not a red line version so it is very difficult to tell what they are.
  5. I also think it was unfortunate that you didn’t get a staff report or recommendation to go through the amendments that were made.
  6. I think pages 2 to 5 contain the substance of the amendments that have been put forth by Supervisor McGoldrick and the working group.
  7. I would urge you to look at those changes.
  8. I think those changes are all positive.

Marilyn Amini.

  1. II think the most important thing about this legislation is that you as the Commission are created by Charter.   The Charter’s permits and licenses are dependent on the Planning Code and administered by the Planning Department, which shall be approved by the Commission.
  2. The Commission may delegate disapproval for the Planning Department.
  3. You can’t delegate your hearing responsibilities, your approval responsibilities.
  4. There should be no body of citizens sitting between the community and you.
  5. They’ve taken it out of the public forum and given you amendments formally presented and you don’t know that to do with them.
  6. I ask that you please make a statement to the supervisor saying that you want the 90 days that the code gives you after modifications have been made to a piece of legislation that’s come before you.


ACTION:            Direct the Planning Director to confer with the maker of the legislation, Supervisor McGoldrick, to explore establishing a pilot program for an area to be initially agreed upon, to test out the elements in the legislation, and that in the meantime the Board of Supervisors does not take action on the legislation while we test it out.

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell

                        RESOLUTION:   17129




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))



             Jeffrey Leibovitz, Eastern SOMA

  1. We are very supportive of the recommendations and very thoughtful deliberations by the Commission tonight on [Supervisor McGoldrick’s legislation].
  2. I think you are headed in the right direction and I think that all of us will benefit from it
  3. The legislation proposed is important and has some extremely good proposals in it.
  4. It was just the process of where we got to and how we got to it that was very troublesome.

Judy Berkowtiz

  1. I address you tonight on SFGTV, Channel 26.
  2. For several weeks you have not been simultaneously broadcast live on Thursday evenings.
  3. There were five reruns of different Boards and Commissions that they put on instead of you.
  4. I believe this is deliberate.
  5. If you could perhaps take some action with SFGTV next to the Elections Department in the basement of City Hall, I would appreciate it.

John Bardis

  1. Criticism of the Department regarding the processing of applications.
  2. Currently the process allows an application to come in and the planner to negotiate back and forth with the applicant.
  3. That should not be allowed.
  4. The application should come in through the door; not be changed; be reviewed and either packed out or moved forward.
  5. There should not be any negotiation taking place.
  6. If you did that, you would have a problem then with what you are going to do with the time of your staff.
  7. It may be that then long-range planning will have some time to be done in the city.


Adjournment:   10: 07 p.m.



SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

  AYES:             S. Lee; Alexander; Antonini; Hughes; Olague; W. Lee

ABSENT:          Bradford-Bell     


Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:18 PM