July 3, 2008 Special
Special Joint Meeting
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE
Special Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 3, 2008
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:30 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, AnMarie Rodgers, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Steve Wertheim, and Susan Exline – Acting Commission Secretary.
A. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS (Tape IA)
1. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
- In today's Chronicle there is an article that deals with the affordable housing issue from a different perspective that we have noted in the past with most of the affordable housing up to the 120 percentile.
- Most of the very little housing built in the last ten years is in the group between the 80 to the 120 percentile but what is presented in the article is for people making less than that and not qualifying for the affordable housing.
- It would be interesting to look into it a little deeper of what housing is being built and for what groups. We have very good studies as to the areas from the 60 to the 120 percentile but we do not know below the 60 percentile what different housing is being built.
- I was asked by an architect how people in this community access the Code on the web. The answer might be very simple by going to SFGOV and you would find it but that is not the case.
- It was brought to my attention, and I am a little bit disturbed about that. While this person was accessing the Code, advertisement from different architectural firms pops out and I found that somewhat inappropriate.
- I would like you to check why this particular architect was not able to access the official City's website to get to the Code.
Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator
- The City has a contract with a private firm to publish the Code. By going to the sfgov.org\planning, there is a link to the City's Planning Code that you can get to but it is an offsite private link.
- It is quite conceivable that I can go to my browser, not through the City, access this Code and ads will pop up just like they do when you go to any website.
- I have never seen that by going through our website but I will check as soon as I get back.
- By going to sfgov.org\planning, the zoning code is on the left hand side with some other stuff. You click on it and it takes you to an outside site and the whole code is available there.
- The second point is that there are other tracks in this Country particularly on the West Coast of the Untied States where people are very concerned that there is too much speculative real estate happening in the cities where people buy and build expensive condominiums that are mostly owned by absentee owners.
- Vancouver is dealing with that problem and has started to track where tax bills are being sent just so they can figure out why so many tall buildings are standing alone and empty.
John Rahaim, Director
- I have heard that concern being raised in several forums. Several weeks ago I asked the Mayor's Office of Housing if they have any statistics on that.
- Their thought is that there were no more than 20% of some of the buildings that might be occupied by people who do not live there year round.
- They believe that 80% of the buyers do live there.
- Basically to the Director of the Department, this has to do with the concept of transit oriented developments.
- I am taking a look at some of my notes and I am looking at things like Visitacion Valley needing an extension, things that are happening in the India Basin, at the Candlestick Bay View Hunter's Point, at Executive Park.
- Just to give an example, Cal train seems to think they think might go as much as extending [3rd Street] to 10 lanes, which to me sound ridiculous.
- Then, I read things about Brisbane right over the water that is working on business parks or commercial parks and that sort of thing, but steadfastly refuses to build housing.
- I do not know whether they do not want any voters, no more basic population, or they want the tax paid from commercial, but those workers have to live some place.
- I just want to be certain that there is cooperation between Cal train, MTA, Planning Department and possibly Brisbane so we are not just working for the motor vehicles and that we actually provide decent transit.
- If the transit is there and available, there will be less car using in the beginning.
- I would like some idea of what is happening with the cooperation of the agencies that are involved.
- Historically, there has not necessarily been a full cooperative effort particularly between MTA or Muni and the Planning Department in land use transit planning.
- I think we eluded briefly in the last meeting about a kind of inter-county agreement between San Mateo and San Francisco counties that was primarily focused on transportation.
- To my knowledge, and we will check this for you, there is a larger discussion being had about the land use patterns in each municipality.
- During the conversation regarding Hunter's Point area, one of the things that was missing there was a decent public transit.
- A couple of things, the MTC is responsible for the 9 Bay Area Counties in transportation and they also have difficulties with ABAG [Associated Bay Area Governments] and they have been working sort of together.
- The issue that I think we need to get from MTC is how does our transit oriented and high density fit in with the transportation link?
- I want to ask staff to tie this into the Eastern Neighborhood and that ABAG gives us their projections on the number of people that would be living in San Francisco and the Bay Area.
- How much housing we need to develop, and give an estimate on the type of jobs?
- The MTC publishes an annual report that lists all the major projects in the Bay Area and how they are funded.
- My other comment is that I read an article in the San Francisco Business Times last week and I do not know if it is true or not but they say that we have another 500,000 square feet of open space coming on board because three corporations went bankrupt.
- Is there a way to track the amount of rental space? I would like to have that maybe on a quarterly basis.
- Given the budget situation, we have 10% less applications in Building and Planning Department and as a Commission we have a responsibility to monitor what is coming in and what is going out. I would like a quarterly report on that.
- On that last note, the Department's revenues are down.
- Interestingly enough, the number of projects is not down but the size of the projects are smaller. It involves the same amount of time and staff.
- We will be happy to do some report on that.
Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator
- Interestingly enough on the Business Times, I was talking to some people who are very experienced in downtown leasing and developments.
- They were somewhat skeptical about that headline being somewhat inflammatory and in fact old news. That space already had been taken up.
- Sometimes Linda [Avery] brings a list of requests that we have made, I do not have it now but way before Director Rahaim arrived we did have an informational presentation either on Visitation Valley or perhaps Executive Park.
- We did indicate interest in having staff get together with the Brisbane Planning Staff or perhaps at some point, if the issues were important enough, to have a joint meeting of some kind but other things took priority.
- It seems that there is a fair amount of interest on this topic and maybe the thing for us to do is to invite ABAG and MTC or have a discussion of how cooperative things are being done across county lines.
- I know staff is working with Brisbane in San Mateo County on the transportation plan for that area and we can have a larger discussion about that.
- There has been a lot of talk about the change in the City's demographics as we are getting to be a slightly older population and in many cases we are loosing the younger population.
- I do not know what we are doing to track some of the demographic trends or looking at new buildings or apartment building purchases and looking to what the population happens to be.
- That obviously affects us in planning and even with the Eastern Neighborhoods we have not even talked very much about senior services or things like that.
- Amenities that relates to that population and planning for those are important.
B. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
2. Director's Announcements
3. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
4. (Tape IA; IB) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE/A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6257/558-6395)
Discussion and consideration of possible action to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding Charter Amendments proposed for the November 4, 2008 election.
- There is a variety of ways to interpret the Secretary of Interior Guidelines to whether or not an alteration would result on a Categorical Exemption or EIR.
- Suggested to make the recommendation that when a client is unhappy with the preservation specialist's decision to be allowed to appeal that decision to the Landmarks Board.
- There is one issue that I would like you to weigh in on and that is new construction in historic/conservation districts.
- Suggested that this Commission ask for jurisdiction on new construction in historic districts or alterations of non-contributory buildings in historic districts.
- This landmarks legislation has the effect of gutting Proposition M which contains 8 priority policies, including historic preservation, and this Commission must balance those policies.
ACTION: The Commission feels that absent modifications to the multiple entitlement issue to allow the Planning Commission to have jurisdiction on multiple entitlement cases that the Commission can not support the Charter Amendment. The Commission also urged that appointments be made with sensitivity to race and diversity.
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Miguel
C. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
- There are so many programs going on like Market – Octavia, Eastern Neighborhoods, Transbay, Japantown that we really need to study the infrastructure aspects of growth like water and seismic issues.
D. SPECIAL CALENDAR
5. 2004.0160EMTUZUU (Tapes IB; IIA; IIB; IIIA; IIIB) (K. RICH (415) 558-6345)
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM -
Hearing #7 - July 3, 2008 - (Commission workshop & public comment)
Staff will continue a discussion with the Commission on direction from the Commissioners regarding potential changes to the Eastern Neighborhoods Initiation Package, including Planning Code Amendments, Zoning Map Amendments, General Plan Amendments, Historic Preservation Interim Procedures, and the Implementation Program.
The Commission may also discuss any and all other subjects related to the Eastern Neighborhoods Program.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation and Public Comment; No Commission Action requested at the July 3 hearing.
The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on May 15, 2008 to consider Case No. 2004.0160EMTUZUU, and would include adopting a Motion to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings and consider resolutions to approve amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map and resolutions to approve Historic Resources Interim Procedures and Public Benefits Program and Monitoring Procedures related to the four Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans - the Mission, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront and East SoMa Area Plans. Hearings are currently scheduled for May 15, 2008, June 5, 2008, June 12, 2008, June 19 2008, June 26 2008, July 3 2008, July 10 2008. The Commission will consider and receive public comment on specific aspects of the Plans and proposed amendments at each hearing. The series of hearings will culminate in a public hearing to consider adoption actions on or after July 10, 2008.
The project encompasses a significant proportion of the San Francisco land area in the southeast quadrant of the City, encompassing:
" East SoMa (the eastern portion of the South of Market district), bounded generally by Folsom Street on the northwest, the Rincon Hill Plan area (essentially, Second Street) on the east, Townsend Street on the south, and Fourth Street on the west, with an extension to the northwest bounded by Harrison, Seventh, Mission, Sixth (both sides), Natoma, Fifth, and Folsom Streets;
" the Mission, bounded by 13th and Division Streets on the north, Potrero Avenue on the east, César Chávez Street on the south, and Guerrero Street on the west;
" the Showplace Square/Potrero Hill district, generally bounded by Bryant Street and 10th Street on the northwest, Seventh Street on the northeast, Interstate Highway 280 (I-280) on the east, 25th and 26th Streets on the south, and Potrero Avenue on the west; and
" the Central Waterfront, bounded by Mariposa Street on the north, San Francisco Bay on the east, Islais Creek on the south, and I-280 on the west.
The project Areas are comprised of the entirety or portions of 437 Assessor's Blocks.
Specifically, on or after June 19, 2008, the Commission will consider the following actions:
" Case 2004.0160E - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of CEQA Findings on the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.
" Case 2004.0160M - Adopt General Plan amendments that would, 1) add to the General Plan four new area plans (the "Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans"), which include the Mission, East SoMa, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill and Central Waterfront Area Plans; and 2) also make related amendments to the following portions of the existing General Plan: the Commerce and Industry Element, Recreation Element, Open Space Element, the South of Market Area Plan, the Central Waterfront Area Plan, the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan, and the Land Use Index;
" Case 2004.0160T - Adopt Planning Code text amendments that would revise Planning Code controls, including, but not limited to controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, density, open space, and parking; establish 13 new zoning districts; amend the South Park District; RTO District, NCT Districts, and Downtown Residential Districts; and make related revisions to the Planning Code necessary to implement the General Plan as proposed to be amended and make related Planning Code Amendments pursuant to the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.
" Case 2004.0160Z - Adopt Zoning Map amendments that would revise the Zoning Maps of the City and County of San Francisco. Proposed Planning Code map amendments would a) update height and bulk districts, b) apply the RTO District and PDR-2 Districts in the Eastern Neighborhoods, and c) establish 13 new zoning districts.
" Case 2004.0160U - Adopt Interim Historic Preservation procedures that would establish interim procedures for additional review of proposed changes to or demolition of historic or potentially historic resources in the Eastern Neighborhoods, pending completion of the ongoing historic resource surveys.
" Case 2004.0160UU - Adopt Monitoring and Review Procedures in order to review development activity and progress towards the Eastern Neighborhoods implementation measures.
Michael Yarni, Mayor's Office of Housing
- The statistics that cause us great concern is the market decline in PDR jobs over the last ten years and in fact has been persistent for several decades.
- Our concern simply is that if we are creating new PDR districts, what sort of jobs and employment can we expect to be in those districts in the future?
- Food service sector has growth, employing 38,000 people in the City, and none with a 4-year degree. Unfortunately the average wage is well below the median income of $50,000.
- As a city, we want to get into a job sector that pays more than the average way for people without a 4-year degree and that have seen growth consistently over the last 10 years.
- Those sectors include some conventional PDR sectors such as the specialty of building trades, broadcasting, construction, and some interesting sectors like computer system designs.
- Future oriented PDR objective: Set aside enough land with restrictions sufficient to prevent wholesale transformation to conventional office or residential uses.
- The key is to provide zoning with enough flexibility to allow for the evolution and growth of existing and new innovative industries.
- We are in support of the PDR proposed by the Planning Department and we are attempting to provide a link between land use and workforce development programs.
- Owners would need to apply for a permit as a privilege not as a right.
- Something we have now that we did not have before is the ability to track each building through the Treasurer's Office data and identify when a change occurs, or when a new business has moved in, to meet with that business and determine if they comply.
Tony Kelly, Potrero Boosters
- The overview of the Commissioners is that this plan does need serious attention and amendments to really have community support and really reflect the community based planning process that has been going on for the past 8 years.
- There is a need for serious attention to these large rezonings, to pay attention to the affordable housing crisis as well as the questions of office space and industrial land. Keep in mind that these are under served neighborhoods.
- Regarding office and industrial space, we are being asked to consider accountable economy where some jobs push out other jobs.
- There is enough land to cover these needs in the Eastern Neighborhoods and elsewhere.
- We have been working with stakeholders in the Mission and South of Market. We are in full support of what they will present today on affordable housing and family youth zoning.
- I want to talk about the review of projects under the plan because you have not really talked about how cases are going to disappear from the Planning Commission Calendar but I want you to focus on it.
- The Zoning Administrator has a lot of power, Commission has some, and the public has not a lot.
- There is no discretionary review allowed, at all, on large projects.
- You should pay attention to the pipeline because it is like a phantom list because you think you would be getting a lot of affordable housing.
- We all have massive displacement, controversy and intrusion with market rate housing.
MissionCoalition for Economic Justice and Jobs
- In 1993 a Community Plan was put together by the Planning Department that took two years with artists, businesses and home owners.
- There was a need to protect existing industries and the opportunity for future industrial growth and development.
- One of the essential components of the opportunity for industrial expansion is the preservation of appropriate land for industries of the future.
- This proposal was about to create an industrial neighborhood, subsidized affordable housing, live-work, and industries for the future.
- We are concerned that a third of the area is going to become non-confirming use.
- We really need to rethink our neighborhood because we are large scale buildings.
- We have been tracking PDR next to very large housing complexes. We need to look more to the knowledge based businesses that are more compatible with residential.
- Regarding housing, we really have to look to middle income housing.
Kate, North East Mission Residents
- Can we keep PDR and save the jobs?
- Honestly; what we see in the industries that are manufacturers that have low cost products trying to compete on low cost services, these companies are increasingly having a hard time staying in San Francisco because it is not actually the best business deal for them.
- There are companies like Mission Linen, with decent pay serving the downtown businesses that are going to be living the northeast Mission and there is nothing that zoning will do to keep them.
- [Presented different business types in the northeast Mission that want to stay in San Francisco.]
- We think that for larger parcels, it makes great sense to allow owners to subdivide into smaller spaces.
- I do think that continuing to look at economic incentives is critical.
- You are going to be asked in a resolution before you to find consistency of this whole area plan with the General Plan.
- That is not going to be possible because the 2004 housing element was found by the Court to not have an adequate environmental review.
- In this material, RTO is printed as if it was already adopted. That was included in the Market-Octavia Plan but that is under appeal.
Sara Marie, North East Mission Residents Association
- Members have been actively talking with many individuals and stakeholders in the North East Mission in the past months to listen and develop our thinking.
- Our goal is to ensure that our neighborhood continues having a diversity of people, businesses and uses, to continue to be a vital incubator for businesses, and to meet the over 6,000 need for housing.
- The current proposal to rezone the area from M-1 to PDR is too narrow and restricted to accommodate the residential needs of our neighborhood.
- We believe that residential with the right kind of PDR can exist because it already exists in our neighborhood.
- [Presented photographs of the area from Folsom between 16th and 18th Streets to show the existent mix of residential, office and PDR uses that are compatible.]
Mai Don, SOMCAM
- After months of walks throughout the SoMa streets and alleys, we came up with the Youth and Family Zone because it is the solution based upon the voice of its existing residents to prevent family displacement.
- We recognize families as not just parents and their children but also none traditional families.
- SoMa youth and families are struggling with many issues including invisibility, displacement, traffic, lack of affordable housing and spaces for youth.
- If the Eastern Neighborhoods is allowed as it is, SoMa would loose the members of its community as they struggle to find more affordable housing elsewhere.
- The SoMa neighborhood demographic: 60% of families earn yearly less than $25,000, 82% with no college education, 44% are foreign born, and 33% are limited English speakers.
- We really need to see how the plan incorporates this particular vulnerable constituency with other types of uses that may not consider their needs on housing and jobs.
- Because this is a small part of the plan, we would like it to be oriented to youth and families.
- The goal is to support and enhance children, youth and families investments that can stabilize existing residents and community institutions.
- What we see as permitted institutional uses would be centers for youth and seniors and not permit liquor stores and movie theaters, massage parlors, etc.
- It is important that we preserve the character of the neighborhood and we wish that the SoMa Youth and Family zone be incorporated into the plan.
- And as such, we do not need liquor stores or massage parlors in our area.
Mary Duran, Youth Organizer - PODER
- We need a community plan and what the community wants is affordable housing, better quality jobs and local small business protection.
Nick Pagaoulatos, MAC [Mission Anti-displacement Coalition]
- Our specific policy recommendations around PDR is to preserve and promote the growth of production distribution, repair businesses and jobs that need isolation from other uses in order to avoid land use conflicts.
- This is really about land value and making sure that we have adequate controls to make sure that existing industries are able to stay in our neighborhood.
Fernando Marti, MAC
- The UMU zone is currently a mixed use area and we want to keep it like that but how do we control land value?
- We would like to see 30% of inclusionary housing zoning throughout the UMU, Transit Corridors and the RTO zones and 100% affordable housing for sites of 10,000 square feet or higher.
- We would like to see base heights allowing base percentage of affordable housing and then allowing greater height for 100% affordable housing: The Mission Street base height of 55 feet with 30% inclusionary and allowing up to 85 feet for 100% affordable, Valencia Street at 45 feet but allow 55 feet for 100% affordable.
Jaime Guerrero, MAC
- Regarding small businesses and retails: we recommend not permitting smoke shops, liquor stores, tourist hotels, adult entertainment, and massage parlors in the UMU and RTO zone.
- In the NCT district, we propose having bars to be a conditional use instead of permitted use.
- We are also asking that movie theaters and art activities be a conditional use conditional on the neighborhood and families service.
Lydia Tan, Breach Housing Corporation
- I am here to talk to you about a slightly a different issue.
- Breach was recently selected by the San Francisco Housing Authority to be the redeveloper of the Potrero public housing projects in the Potrero Hill area, 22nd and the west side of Pennsylvania.
- This particular area is not being considered in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. It needs to under go its own rezoning.
- Some of the objectives that the Housing Authority, Mayor's Office of Housing and Breach Housing are doing is trying to reintegrate this neighborhood back into the overall community.
- We are hoping that the redevelopment of this particular area will provide economic financial sustainability for the public housing units that are there and they can stay there for the long term.
- We would like the Planning Commission to think about perhaps expanding this line to include some of the properties that are adjacent, not a rezone or land use designation.
- Keep open the idea that we might look at a rezoning in the future as we finish and go through our land planning process.
- Although I am delighted that the SEW [Small Enterprise Workspace] designation is moving along, I am concerned with the way that it is being framed.
- They are proposing that this would be for new construction only and I see it as a provision for existing buildings.
- I do have a survey of rents that we produced of staff's request and we will provide that today.
- I am concern with the fact that the land on Harrison and Folsom Streets are quite different than the land around the top of Potrero Hill, Franklin Square Park area.
- The impacts of the zoning on existing buildings that are either on liquid or solid bedrock are huge and you are not considering this when you are talking about heights and upgrades.
- How do we make certain that good and current employers stay in the Eastern Neighborhoods?
- Eastern Neighborhoods recognize that multimedia looks like an office and it is an office.
- Any legal existing multimedia should be a legal non-conforming use.
[No name stated]
- Somewhere along the line there is a disconnection between what is being built and noise. There is a density level where it is just a little bit too much.
- Suggested that if you have new construction for apartments or condos, they need to dedicate spots for pets and pay extra fees because they are going to go to public parks.
- The proposed zoning of PDR at Pennsylvania and 25th Street is incompatible with what exists there with residential.
- This area should be considered for Urban Mix Use.
- Over the last 8 years various conditional uses have been granted in what is currently M-2 zoning between 23rd and 25th to allow those condominiums to develop.
- The proposed UMU zoning in the Dog Patch just stopped short.
- Encouraged to extend it to include the blocks of 23rd and 25th, Indiana and Third Streets.
- Non-conforming uses, there are hundreds of these types of businesses all over.
- Without further direction from to the Zoning Administrator, he will be forced to ask them to relocate.
- A lot of the great companies you have heard about today would have to leave.
Stephen Kolk, Consultant of San Francisco Opera Warehouse
- The Opera is interested in redeveloping the site of 800 Indiana Street, probably to rental housing.
- Requested that the plan increase the permitted height on this block because it is critical for feasibility to any project on this block.
- The area of Indiana Street is currently M-2 zoning and it successfully attracts a mix of uses.
- Concerned that the proposed PDR zoning will have a negative affect on our neighborhood and safety.
- For housing, you need to have a large print and that is what we have on 16th Street.
- You should go to 85 feet just like Mission Street. Likewise, around the BART station.
- We are a transit first City and we need to put the people before that transit.
[No name stated]
- I appreciate the dialogue that has been happening in the last few weeks but now it is time to hear from those who would be impacted by this plan.
- As the industry evolves so should the zoning to accommodate businesses.
- Does the City want to promote good businesses that provide jobs and a tax base?
- I just want to let you know that Lynn Sedway Group of Land Use Economists has been engaged to make a peer review of the report with respect to the proposed increase, affordability exaction, and Eastern Neighborhoods fee.
- We are hoping to bring you the report of the peer review by next week.
- Supported Mr. Yarni's proposal of the innovative industry approach because the need to consider its function is very important.
- Potrero Hill on 17th Street already has height limitations and I am requesting you consider increasing the height of the property at 17th and Texas Streets to 65 feet.
ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Presentation only
E. 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))
- Requested to craft a live-work ordinance for PDR businesses because it is the best solution for affordable incubator mixed use districts.
- Requested to vote on the pipeline projects next week.
- Requested to schedule the pipeline projects PDR replacement for action next week.
Adjournment: 8:00 P.M.
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, October 16, 2008.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.