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

November 10, 2005

November 10, 2005



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, November 10, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting



COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:         Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W Lee and Olague





STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Jim Miller, Michael Smith, Rick Crawford, Dan DiBartolo, Jonas Ionin – Acting 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.          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 modify controls in C-3 Zoning Districts regarding required and permitted off-street parking and loading, design of access to off-street parking and loading, bicycle parking, car sharing, separating 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. Commission action is not proposed for on October 27.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 27, 2005)

            (Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)


SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee and W. Lee



           2.                                                                  (J. JARAMILLO/ J. RUBIN:  (415) 558-6818)/558-6310) 

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL FOR REZONING IN THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD - Informational presentation will include an update on the status of the Eastern Neighborhoods planning effort and an overview of staff’s proposed permanent controls.  The Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning includes Showplace Square, Mission, Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront, Bayview, and parts of South of Market.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Informational Presentation, No action Requested

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 27, 2005)                 

(Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)


SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee and W. Lee




            3.         Commission Comments/Questions


Commissioner Antonini –

  1. Last week I made some comments regarding questions I’ve had about 80 West Portal.   I have responded to the publication that I believe contained some inaccurate information.  That will be published, to my knowledge, next month.
  2.   I will also give my comments to the Commission Secretary and they will be available for the public for those with interest.  Contained therein is a site where you can visit the actual hearing and hear what was actually said.  I appreciate the public’s interest in this issue.




4.         Director’s Announcements




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


            Board of Supervisors –

  1. was approved 6 to 5
  2. I expect that project will proceed through the process.
  3. I would not be surprised if there is an appeal of the building permit to the Board of Appeals.
  4. At the Land Use Committee yesterday –
  5. There was a hearing on the elevator penthouse amendments.
  6. You may recall they were proposed amendments to allow the extension of elevator penthouses to be 16 feet rather than 10 feet for those buildings in height districts from 40 feet in height to 65 feet in height.
  7. The concern was that the 10 feet does [not] presently allow enough [space] for safety for an override if there is an elevator person working on top of the elevator and it starts moving.  There needs to be enough space, a place of refuge, I believe it’s called, so that they are not crushed against the top of the elevator enclosure.
  8. There were a number of questions at the hearing yesterday.
  9. Although I couldn’t stay for the final vote because I had to go the Board of Appeals, I believe the questions were addressed and it moved to the full Board with a full recommendation by all members.



Board of Appeals –

  1. was before you on May 26, 2005.
  2. You took DR to disapprove the merger of a six unit building into a five unit building.
  3. The two units in question were on the third floor – one was 400 square feet and the other was about 800 square feet.
  4. The building was Ellis Acted.
  5. You found that the studio unit did not have design or functional deficiencies.  While it was 400 sf, it was a very useful 400 sf.
  6. The last occupants of the dwelling did not move voluntarily.
  7. This first went before the Board about three weeks ago but was continued because a commissioner was absent.
  8. Last night the full Board was present and they voted to overturn you 4 to 1.
  9. It was expressed (in regard to the 400 sf unit) that the priority is to create family housing and that we are losing families.  It was stated that we have enough small units and that in this case the priority to create a family unit outweighed the actual loss of the housing unit.
  10. It was also noted that the unit would be owner occupied.


6.         Green Building – Informational Presentation


SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to December 1, 2005

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee and W. Lee


6b.        [THIS WAS THE ADDENDUM ITEM]                                                       (D. HESSE)

            FIRST SOURCE HIRING PROGRAM – Informational presentation on First Source Hiring Program and City Build Program requirements.

            Preliminary Recommendation:  No action



Don Hesse, First Source Hire Administrator

  1. The purpose of the First Source Hiring Program is to match open entry-level jobs with people who are looking for entry-level jobs.  It really is that simple.
  2. The entry-level jobs come from employers who have some connection with the city.  The job seekers may come from community based organizations; from training programs run by those organizations or by the city; from the city’s welfare-to-work program; or just people that are looking for a job – or perhaps looking for a better job.
  3. The Board and the Mayor created the program in 1989.
  4. In 2004, the Board of Supervisors made some significant amendments in the ordinance – two of which affected the Planning Department and Commission.
  5. The original legislation applied to commercial development of over 50,000 square feet and subsequently 25,000 square feet.  The amendment expanded that to residential projects requiring Planning Commission activity on permits of ten units or more.
  6. In the residential projects, the only jobs involved for the most part are in the construction of those projects no matter how large they are with no end-use jobs.
  7. In the commercial developments—whether an office building or a Safeway—we also focus on what we call the end-use jobs that will occupy those sites.
  8. The second amendment says the Planning Commission shall not approve a development project or shall any city department issue a permit subject to this chapter unless the developer or contractor has obtained approval from the First Source Hiring Administration of a First Source Hiring Agreement applicable to the development project.
  9. Once a project is leased up, they have the responsibility to participate in the First Source Hiring program for ten years.


Chris Iglesias, Director of City Build

  1. We have already developed specific contract language that we’ve started to incorporate in city contracts.
  2. We are just amending current city contracts and starting City Build language which was developed in consultation with the employers, the contractors, the building trades, …
  3. It meets a lot of the letter of the law right now as far as the parameters we can work under with the injunction currently against the city as far as equal opportunity programs.
  4. It is a private program so we could change things very quickly.  If something isn’t working, we’ll get rid of it.  If it is working, we’ll stick with it.  It would be a tool you guys could have on your projects too.
  5. Once the City Build Academy is up and running they want to get back into the high schools, which used to offer shop classes, but don’t anymore.
  6. We are very close to having our first academy class, which is really a pre-apprenticeship training class in January of 2006.
  7. It is a partnership with many people.  One is City College.  One is the Building Trades, PIC, Regional Council of Carpenters, and a lot of people coming together to make this academy happen.  One of the groups we have been meeting with regularly is the San Francisco Unified School District.



Sue Hester

  1. Referred the Commission to section 164 of the Planning Code, which is the source of funding.
  2. When we drafted Prop M in 1986, and it was adopted by the voters, there were three components.
  3. The jobs part of it is often forgotten.  But it is in the Planning Code and authorizes you to impose a fee of $0.50 a square foot.  I think someone needs to look at it.
  4. Number two was the integration of the computer system.  It is a crying need.
  5. I assume you had difficulties with the funding program.
  6. The Planning Department is very good at putting conditions on projects and closing files.  But staff leaves and files get lost.  Unless it [conditions] is all the way through so that other agencies know there is a fee, or the Mayor’s Office of Housing knows about a job program, we are screwed.                            

ACTION:  Informational only.  No action. 




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.






7.         POLICY UPDATE                                                                      (J.Ionin: (415) 558-6309)

Dwelling Unit MergerS - Mandatory Discretionary Review Policy for Dwelling Unit Mergers.  The update includes modified criteria and administrative relief for certain types of mergers.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.




Brett Gladstone

  1. Your current policy has vastly limited the number of unit mergers in town because they work.
  2. Staff keeps wonderful statistics about how many losses we had.  Only five units have been lost over the last three years with your current policy.
  3. With the creation of about 2000 housing units a year, of which almost a third are affordable, that is a minor loss.
  4. Weigh that minor loss against the consequences when families need housing in an already tight market.  They are leaving in droves.
  5. Staff needs statistics on how many people come in for mergers but abandon their plans when the criteria is explained to them.  Those numbers need to be compared to the yearly number of people who get before your commission.
  6. If you do not reject it completely today, please give us a continuance of three weeks so some of us, including the Coalition of Better Neighborhoods, can address in writing some of the problems with the new criteria.
  7. Staff has worked hard, but there are a lot of things they haven’t kept in mind like why there isn’t some soundness housing issue criteria looked at?

Margo Park, representing the Pacific Heights Residence Association

  1. This has been a big problem in Pacific Heights.
  2. Criterion one and two are not applicable for the most part in San Francisco.  Aren’t most rental units rent controlled?
  3. The affordable unit criterion certainly doesn’t apply to our area.
  4. Criterion three is pretty reasonable.  A person should have a right to increase the size of his dwelling units.  But where do you draw the line?
  5. Your criteria four and five bring the building closer into conformance of the prevailing density of the block or closer to the current zoning.
  6. There are so many buildings that are legal nonconforming uses.  We have a building in a RH-1 zoned area that has provided, at least for Pacific Heights, good size rental units that we would lose under the new thing.
  7. Finally, the last one is the most important.
  8. You word it that the building is not in its original configuration and removal of units would bring it closer to its original density.  We think it should be stated positively that a building should retain its original configuration.  In other words, the dwelling units cannot be removed unless it was originally designed as a single-family unit.
  9. I don’t understand the thing I just read today about exceeding the 80th percentile.

The Director of the San Francisco Apartment Association (name was not clear)

  1. We are in the business of representing rental-housing providers in the city.  It is in our best interest to maintain rental-housing stock.
  2. A few of our members have had dwelling unit mergers before this commission to establish larger dwelling units for their families.  They have been denied and forced to go to the Board of Appeals.
  3. We believe that we need to help the Planning Department establish a more family friendly look at rental housing for everyone in the city.
  4. I just recently found out about this hearing and haven’t had time to fully read through all the documentation so a continuance would be in order.
  5. We don’t want to lose housing stock, but we don’t want to lose families more than we don’t want to lose rental-housing stock.
  6. We can build our way out and provide more affordable housing with some of the new inclusionary laws that exist in the city.
  7. But when families are leaving because they can’t live in our neighborhoods, that is a very alarming situation for all of us that live here.
  8. If you don’t allow some people to combine a dwelling unit for one owner occupant landlord, we’re going to be faced with people invoking the Ellis Act and losing more units because they’ll turn them into an alternative living situation by going out of the rental housing business all together.

Pat Buscovich

  1. I think it is more important that you spend your time looking at policies than looking at every individual building that comes here.
  2. I have some issues with this.
  3. What we should be talking about is whether it is important for a merger policy to be discussing affordability.  That is something that is important you should be discussing and setting those policies and directing staff as opposed to individual buildings again and again and again.
  4. I don’t know if this is prime time and ready to go, but this is the right direction.

ACTION:  Following hearing, continued to January 12, 2006.  Public hearing remains open.

AYES:     Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes, S. Lee and W. Lee


8.         2004.0858C                                                                    (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

766 VALLEJO STREET - north side between Powell and Stockton Streets; Lot 043 in Assessor's Block 130 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 722.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility for Cingular Wireless, mounted on the existing building comprising a parking garage and police station. Under the City and County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the property is a Preferred Location Preference 1, as it is a publicly used building. The proposal is to install six panel antennas at three different locations on the facade and the roof of the approximately 67-foot high building. Related equipment would be placed on the fourth floor level within the parking garage a basement storage area. The property is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)



Sandra Steele, representing Cingular Wireless

  1. Thanked staff for helping us come up with a well integrated design at this site.
  2. The site was selected because it was an excellent location from the standpoint of site availability.  This is a preference one location and a co-location on a public property that contains a police station on the lower level and a parking garage on the upper level.
  3. She gave a detailed description of the site and design of the antennas.
  4. We are trying to improve coverage to Vallejo, Green, and Mason Streets.
  5. The installation would provide emergency 911 services and enhance the ability to communicate in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster when traditional landlines may be rendered inoperable.

Angela Alexandria

  1. I’m a resident and live about half a block away from the proposed facility.
  2. I’ve lived there for many years in a rent-controlled unit.
  3. I notice that the short-term studies show no adverse health effects, but there is nothing in place in terms of long-term studies. Therefore, who is to say how this might affect us?

Jean Chin

  1. I live in Russian Hill.  However, my father-in-law lives on Apollo Street, maybe a quarter block from the proposed site.  He is 93 years old.  He had a hip injury and he is on dialysis.
  2. The people in the community are mostly elderly and don’t speak English well.
  3. They are concerned about their health
  4. They don’t want these antennas there.
  5. They feel that these will benefit businesses and people who use cell phones.  Not us.


ACTION:           Approved

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

NAYES:            Bradford-Bell and Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee

MOTION:           17140


9a.        2004.1306ECV                                                                      (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1018 - 1020 PINE STREET - north side between Taylor and Jones Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 253, in an RM-4 (Mixed Residential, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District  - Request for Conditional Use authorization of for height in excess of 40 feet for the construction a new, five-story, eight-unit residential building 50.0 feet in height, also requiring rear-yard and off-street-parking Variances

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions



Jerry -- Project Sponsor

  1. The project before you is a nonconforming commercial building located in a residential district.
  2. It will have eight units including seven family size units and parking for seven cars.
  3. The prior use was commercial with no residential units.
  4. A previous tenant ran a grocery store at this location.  In June of 2004 she asked me if she could end her lease early.  I agreed and she left in August of last year.
  5. There was also a Laundromat in the site, which closed in December of 2004.  The property has been vacant since then.
  6. After a pre-application meeting with Department staff, we reduced the bulk of the top floor to make it fit more gracefully into the streetscape and designed a project with more dynamic architecture with stronger presence than the common tired stucco facades of the neighboring buildings.
  7. The lot is shallow and the neighborhood is dense.  There is no pattern of rear yard open space.

Owen Kenerly -- Project Architect

  1. I’m speaking in support of the project.
  2. Gave a detailed description of the project’s design.

Lawrence Ratto -- Vice President of the Board of Directors of the Nob Hill Homeowners Association

  1. We are not opposed to the project.  We think it is a good one.
  2. We are opposed to some of the variances that are asked for.
  3. We are mostly concerned about parking.


ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:          S. Lee

MOTION:           17141


9b.        2004.1306ECV                                                                      (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1018 - 1020 PINE STREET - north side between Taylor and Jones Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 253, in an RM-4 (Mixed Residential, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. Rear-Yard and Off-Street-Parking Variances Sought -The proposal is to construct a new, five-story, eight-unit residential building 50.0 feet in height.  The new building would have 100 percent coverage at the ground floor and a rear yard of approximately 12 feet on its upper floors when the Planning Code would require an 18.75-foot rear yard open and clear from the ground up.  The proposal is for seven off-street parking spaces when the Code would require eight.  The project is also the subject of a request for authorization of a Conditional Use for height over 40 feet in an “R” District.


SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION:           The Zoning Administrator granted the rear-yard and off-street parking variances.


10a.      2004.0782D                                                                           (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)                                                                                                (

163 COLLINGWOOD STREET - east side between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 2695 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.01.13.3183, 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 the demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)



Jeremy Paul

  1. This is my neighborhood.  I live about a block and a half away.
  2. I really have a lot of respect for what Mr. McMan has done with this site.
  3. It adds character to a very mixed sidewalk.
  4. Overall, I think that this is a very good project for new housing.
  5. It is very difficult to justify saving the existing building.  It is the smallest building on the block.

Ursula Heise

  1. I live on the second floor of a building that is on the south side of the proposed building.
  2. I want to bring to your attention two issues that several of us neighbors have been concerned about.
  3. The first one is the issue of the light wells.  We don’t have any great view going out the north side, but we do have a lot of light in my apartment and the one on the third floor gets a lot of light from that site.  Most of that would be blocked from the proposed construction.
  4. I was wondering if it is possible to push for a light well on the south side that matches the one that is in existence on our building.
  5. The second issue of concern is flooding problems.  We are wondering what the impact will be with replacing what is now a fairly modest sort of one-story dwelling with a high priced multi-bath building of three condos and how those problems might be addressed?


ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

AYES:              Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and W. Lee

NAYES:            Antonini and Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee


10b.      2004.0783D                                                                            (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

163 COLLINGWOOD STREET, east side between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 2695 - 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. 2005.01.13.3186, proposing to construct a three-story over garage three-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 the project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)    


SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 10a.

ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and approved the new construction modifying the south side lighwell on the upper level and requiring that footprint to apply to levels M and L as shown on drawings dated September 30.  The project is also to be modified to eliminate the 10-foot aluminum mass that extends atop the building.

AYES:              Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and W. Lee

NAYES:            Antonini and Olague

ABSENT:          S. Lee


            11.        2005.0074D                                                              (R. CRAWFORD: (415)   558-6358)

231 ORTEGA STREET - south side between 9th and 10th Avenues.  Assessor's Block 2125 Lot 001F - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 1005 6033 to construct a full third story on the existing single family dwelling and to extend the building toward the front, west side, and rear, in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.   

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications



David – DR Requestor

  1. I’m a neighbor directly to the east of the subject property.
  2. This is a key lot property.  You can see that the increase of the size is going to have a very large impact on our property.
  3. My wife owns and runs a family day care in our house which we’ve had for about the last 20 years.  Losing sunlight and air, which would be caused by the extension of this property, will have a devastating effect on the running of the day care.
  4. I’m also a licensed structural engineer and I Have to tell you that I feel that the plans as submitted do not meet code, and cannot meet code, and are still a demolition.
  5. In my opinion, they are highly unprofessional.
  6. [To illustrate his point, he walked the Commission through the seismic requirements.]
  7. This was a sound house that has been occupied for the last 30 to 40 years.
  8. It is in fact an affordable house.

Kristine Alba

  1. On July 22nd of this year I purchased 1901 and 1903 9th Avenue, which sits on the corner of Ninth and Ortega.
  2. Two days ago I returned from my honeymoon and was informed by a neighbor of the plans to build a larger structure at 231 Ortega
  3. Before this I had not heard anything about this.
  4. 231 Ortega is directly behind my home and goes straight into the sidewall and covers both the back bedrooms on the rear of my unit, which is on the top floor and rear of the unit below mine, which is my tenant.
  5. As it is now, this building dwarfs my building and creates a huge shadow on the backyard as well as not allowing any sunlight in my tenant’s unit.
  6. There will be significant loss of sunlight to my backyard as well as both bedrooms in the back of my unit and my tenant’s unit if this building goes up any higher than what it is right now.
  7. I ask that you don’t let this be built.

Hugh Conroy

  1. I’m the resident owner of 1907 9th Avenue and I’ve been there for 36 years.
  2. I’ve had this house on Ortega Street in view from my backyard for all that time and that house has always been occupied.
  3. Most people that have lived there found it a very desirable place to live.  It has a beautiful southern exposure backyard.
  4. I absolutely see it as a sound affordable house.
  5. I’m in opposition to the planned enlargement because of the impact with respect to air and light to the rear of my property.

Sue Hester -- Attorney for the DR requestor

  1. [On the basis of the owner’s filing, she showed floors and walls that are to be eliminated/demolished, and floors that can’t be supported.  She also showed the dry rot notation.]
  2. She pointed out the engineer’s name on the application is James Lee.
  3. He has been the subject of discussion at DBI and at the Planning Department for exactly these kinds of dry rot demolitions.
  4. The bottom line is that this is going to be fully demolished.
  5. We appreciate Mr. Crawford [staff] saying if you’re going to build anything additional, you have to have it only on this 32-foot front portion of the building.
  6. You’ve heard from the people who are affected.
  7. You really shouldn’t be inviting people to dissemble on their applications.
  8. This is really a demolition and I don’t think you should approve it.

Chong Tung – Project Sponsor

  1. The house is only a 50-foot house sitting on a hundred foot lot.  It is not long at all.
  2. Right now the height is 29 feet and it is already a three-story building.
  3. It does not go up any higher.
  4. According to my drawing, it goes up to 32 feet.
  5. Compared to the other buildings, it is a lot smaller than the three neighbors who are complaining.
  6. It is not a light well situation.
  7. The massing is within the city’s guidelines.
  8. According to my architect, James Lee, traditionally a San Francisco building can be remodeled/reinforced by plywood.
  9. We don’t necessarily have to tear down everything.
  10. I have a big family and I would like to provide them with housing.

ACTION:           Took DR and denied the proposed project

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

ABSENT:          S. Lee




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


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


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

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

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




Adjournment:  6:22 P.M.




SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague

EXCUSED:        S. Lee

ABSENT:          W. Lee















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