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

July 19, 2012

New Page 1



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 19, 2012

12:00 PM

Regular Meeting


COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya





STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Kevin Guy, Alicia John-Baptiste, Sharon Young, and Linda 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.            2012.0206C                                                                         (M. Smith: (415) 558-6322)

2299 MARKET STREET - south side of the intersection of Market, Noe, and 16th Streets, Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3564 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization -pursuant to Planning Code Sections 721.21, 721.49 and 303 to establish a 3,314 square-foot bank (d.b.a. “Bank of the West”) in the ground floor commercial space of a newly constructed mixed-use building that is currently under construction.  The bank would offer ATM service in an area that is recessed from the sidewalk.  The subject property is located within the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. 

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                                (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2012)

                        (Proposed for Continuance to August 2, 2012)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as Proposed

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong







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


2.         2012.0457C                                                                               (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

168-186 EDDY STREET - northeast corner at Taylor Street, Lots 010 and 011 of Assessor’s Block 0331 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization of a Planned Unit Development, and actions regarding shadow impacts pursuant to Planning Code Section 295 (Case No. 2007.1342CK). Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved project to demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct a new 14-story, 130-foot tall mixed-use building containing approximately 153 affordable dwelling units, approximately 14,250 gross square feet of ground-floor commercial space, a supportive services office, rooftop and second floor open space, one loading space, and no off-street parking. The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject property is located within the RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea 1), and the 80-130-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18665


3.         2012.0509C                                                                              (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

100 CALIFORNIA STREET - northwest corner at Davis Street; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 0236 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved Office Allocation, Downtown Project Authorization, and actions regarding shadow impacts pursuant to Planning Code Section 295 (Case No. 2006.0660BKX). Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved project to construct a six-story vertical addition containing approximately 78,000 square feet of office space to an existing 13-story office building, reaching a total height of approximately 267 feet, and to add a ground-floor retail space measuring approximately 1,500 square feet. The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject property is located within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) Zoning District and the 350-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18666




Adoption of Commission Minutes – Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission.  Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.


4.         Consideration of Adoption:

·         Draft Minutes of Special & Regular Meetings of June 7, 2012

·         Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 21, 2012


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved as proposed:  Special Meeting of June 7, 2012

Approved as corrected:

June 7, 2012, Regular Meeting:

·         Page 3; Commission Comments/Questions; under Commissioner Antonini; comments should be corrected to read:  “My 2-year-old granddaughter even noticed the keys of the xylophone were missing.”

·         Page 3; Commission Comments/Questions; under Commissioner Borden; comments should be corrected to read:  “I want to thank a member of staff, Chris Haw, and the enforcement they rendered to a project.”

June 21, 2012, Regular Meeting:

·         Page 3; Commission Comments/Questions; under Commissioner Sugaya; comments should be corrected to read:  I have also been reading "The Season of the Witch," but I cannot attest to its accuracy because of the I was in a purple haze most of the time.

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong



Members of the Commission Secretary Search Sub-Committee will brief the Commission on the activities and achievements to date to fill the Commission Secretary position once the current position becomes vacant in the fall. 


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Meeting held. Continued to 8/26/12


6.         Commission Comments/Questions

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

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


Commissioner Antonini:  

First of all, I do not want to disappoint any of you, but you're watching the Ethics Commission. The next meeting will be held later today in another room even though we [they] were in this room yesterday. I believe their session begins at 5:00 P.M. today in another part of the building.

I did want to congratulate Commissioner Wu and Commissioner Hillis who is going to be joining us. Commissioner Wu will continue on the Planning Commission, having been confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Hillis will join us after he is formally sworn in. I hope that he is confirmed within the next couple of weeks too, and be able to continue to contribute and to bring to the Commission many years of experience.  These are going to be four very exciting years ahead of us and I hope to be here to help.  I really appreciate having been able to meet with all of our City Supervisors to talk about their issues and concerns, both district-wide and city- wide, and I think the lines of communication have to always remain open, and, as most of you know, I am always available, not only to our Supervisors but to every member of the public.  My cell phone and home phone and e-mail and everything are easily accessible. If anybody ever has any questions, they should always direct them to me. I try to get back as soon as I possibly can.  

Finally, I appreciate the Supervisors who spoke on my behalf in the last few days, and I also to those who may have had concerns, I have always been appreciative and respectful, and I appreciate that on-going process. I’d like to thank those who offered any support to me as I move forward in this process. Thank you.

Commissioner Sugaya:  

A quick news item, I was just reading this in a publication called San Francisco Public Press. It’s an   item on growing smarter for the Bay Area. It starts with one headline that says – “Can San Francisco handle 150,000 more people as the Bay Area is expected to grow by 2.1 million people by 2040?”  There is the original plan I take it that is called “One Bay Area.” Have we had a briefing on that or can we? It is interesting because this region is the fastest growing in California but planners agree that sustainable growth can be achieved if new development is funneled to the right places. San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and other cities, along BART, or Rapid Transit Lines; which are the ideal place for the new people. The implications for San Francisco, it says, calls for San Francisco to create 92,410 new housing units by 2014. Ms. Wu knows quite well what that means - a 14% increase of all new housing in the entire region. So they are putting a lot of emphasis on the cities that have denser populations at the moment. Next is a headline that says – “Cities resist regional plan to limit sprawl.” Now we have the City and others, like Oakland, struggling with trying to increase some density to accommodate this kind of growth that we are trying to plan for using existing zoning and General Plan policies to accommodate that growth. Yet, we have cities outside of the area in what I guess you would call Suburban America that is resisting the idea that there should be growth and increased density. It is a challenge. I can hand this around. I do not know if people have seen it. It is an interesting item. 

Commissioner Moore:

In response to Commissioner Sugaya's comments: Alameda, which is suburban low density single-family housing and are now close to the Bay Region, just a few weeks ago changed its laws to accept higher density housing. How high its density is probably not like San Francisco, but at least it is more than two story town houses. I think they're going into the four to six story low-rise apartments.  But that is a step in the right direction. I actually pushed the buzzer to ask Director Rahaim about a letter we received regarding a withdrawal of an appeal of a preliminary negative declaration on 376 Castro.  I cannot figure out what that was or what that was supposed to be.

Director Rahaim:

I believe it is the one at the corner of Market and Castro Streets. Right at the corner of the gas station on the northwest corner of Market and Castro Streets, it has not come to you yet, but there has been an appeal. It would have come to you, but the appeal was withdrawn. So the project will still come to you.

Commissioner Moore:  

I could not make sense of it. You put it in contact now. Thank you.

Commissioner Sugaya:  

Just to put Alameda into context, up until recently they would not add or allow anything bigger than a duplex. They had examples of multiple family housing including housing above retail that were not allowed. So this is quite a change I think.

Commissioner Antonini:

On the same subject, I saw a news report, and I think they said in 1979 there was a zoning change in Alameda that had disallowed any multiple units. It might have allowed duplexes. It was very restrictive. Now, State law has mandated that they do their share of population growth and denser housing to accommodate the population. In the state law, I believe the Council had voted to allow conformity to what the State was saying, and changing the zoning, although nothing according to the report had come through yet as far as the project was concerned, but they were allowed to rezone and change the 1979 zoning.

Commissioner Borden:

I am responding to that. I wonder if there is something we could maybe learn more about. We talked about having a regional report to understand what some of the other municipalities are doing, particularly closer in like Oakland and San Jose, because a lot of people who work down there live up here. I would also like to understand, I would think under Fair Housing Law, what kinds of ordinances would be legal? It would not seem to me that multiple family unit living having a law like that would pass because you must have housing ranges for diverse populations of income, one would think. I do not know.  It would be helpful to understand what other regions are planning and have figured out. I know we also even talked about the project in Brisbane that is happening as well by the BART Station there, just so we can understand how it is flowing together.

Commissioner Moore:  

A good source for tapping into on that issue is SPUR. The San Jose office is very closely following it. Their strong component for smart growth is for more details and information be made available - for which they are definitely a great source. The discussion or controversy around Alameda and what they got themselves into dates back easily 15 or more years at the time of the closure of the Naval Air Station when the Council proposed to [reduce the plane] with higher density.  It was a really good plan but it fell on its face at that time. They have been battling this issue ever since.

Commissioner Wu:

I just wanted to add two items. Last night I attended an interesting forum put on by one of the new tech firms in Midmarket. We have had some discussion here at the Commission about what it means that these new firms are moving into the Midmarket, and what it means for the populations that are there currently. The question on the table last night was how can these firms play a role in ensuring that there is food in the neighborhood for the tenants living in SRO's? I thought it was an interesting beginning of the discussion. I believe they're tapping into improving San Francisco. I am not exactly sure what that is, but it was a great forum to put together ideas.

There are some members of the audience today from a program that my employer is involved in or I am involved in at the Chinatown Community Center. Commissioner Moore came to their final review, if you want to call it that, I think two years ago. Last year. It was really great - sort, of a grass-roots training program for the future planers of our City.  We are going to be doing a brown bag exchange with the Panning Department. I wanted to invite all the commissioners to come to the final project review on August 3 0f this year at 10:00 A.M.




7.         Director’s Announcements


Director Rahaim:

If I may stretch the conversation for one more minute on the Regional Plan:
We have been working with ABAG on the Sustainable Community Strategy required under SB 3
75. The numbers mentioned were the numbers allocated to San Francisco and were based on a very extensive process. They originally were higher. Then they dropped. They went back and forth for several months. They have finalized those numbers and are entering the EIR phase of that Sustainable Community Synergy. So I think it would be a good time to have a hearing at the Planning Commission. I will ask staff to get organized and will try to get folks from ABAG, and I think SPUR has been heavily involved in that.

Secondly, I just want to call your attention to the Director's report today. There is a little note about having recognized milestone years of service for the planning staff. It turns out that we had never done this in the Department. Because of that, we were sort of playing catch up. Out of 150 people who were recognized for years of service, ranging from 5 years to 35 years in service, the second longest is your Secretary, Linda Avery who has 30 years of service with the Department. It was a very nice event and I think staff appreciated the recognition. I also realize that there are some commissioners on this Commission that have multiple years of service, which we should recognize. We would be happy to do that at a future meeting as well.

Finally, we have had a week of public meetings related to the Better Market Street Project. The first one was on Tuesday where we had over 200 people attend. It was an incredible attendance. The second one is Saturday, July 21, at One South Van Ness.  We also have published today, I guess, a public webinar at noon. We're getting very good responses on the Market Street work. I know Commissioner Miguel is continuing to be on the Committee that is overseeing work as well. That concludes my presentation unless there are questions.


8.         Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.


TCDP.  On Monday July 16 the Land Use Committee held a hearing on the Transit Center District Plan, including all of the ordinances approved by this Commission in May. In addition to the members of the Committee, Supervisors Jane Kim and Christina Olague attended the hearing, as both Supervisors have signed on as co-sponsors of the Plan's legislation along with Mayor Lee. Director Rahaim and TJPA Executive Director Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan made opening remarks. Project manager Joshua Switzky presented the highlights of the Plan. The Supervisors posed numerous questions throughout the presentation and subsequent discussion.  They were most interested in affordable housing, open space, shadow analysis, funding, parking, building height and historic preservation.  Approximately a dozen members of the public spoke during public comment on the Plan, and the comments could generally be characterized as supportive[1]. The Supervisors present expressed substantial support for the Plan, its comprehensiveness and its importance to the City.  The Committee forwarded all elements of the Plan as proposed to the full Board with a positive recommendation.

CPMC: Also at Committee was another hearing on CPMC’s Long Range Development Plan Project. The hearing was the fourth of four planned meetings at the Land Use Committee. Monday’s hearing focused on the transportation and housing. The housing discussion focused on the three primary topics: 1) the underlying Code requirements of the Jobs Housing Linkage fee; 2) the Van Ness Special Use District’s housing production requirement to build three square feet of residential use for every one square foot of non-residential space; and 3) the housing payments negotiated as part of the Development Agreement. City staff also presented the transportation components of the CPMC project, with a focus on the Cathedral Hill Campus. President Chiu, Supervisor Kim, and Supervisor Campos joined the Committee for portions of the 5- hour hearing.


The Planning Department’s Environmental Review staff provided an overview of the transportation components of the Project.  The presentation reviewed

  1. the Cathedral Hill Campus’ proposed vehicular circulation;
  2. the Department’s CEQA methodology for Transportation Analysis (for Trip Generation, Mode Split, Distribution, and Trip Assignment);
  3. the Project’s Transportation Impacts – specifically the six near-term significant unavoidable impacts (2 traffic, 3 transit, 1 construction);
  4. the project’s parking demand compared to its anticipated demand and Planning Code allowance;
  5. an update on the BRT and its relationship to the project; and
  6. an overview of CPMC’s TDM plan.

Planning’s presentation was followed by a presentation by the SFMTA on the provisions of the Development Agreement related to transit services.  They discussed various improvement strategies that would be implemented to ameliorate the impacts to the transportation network surrounding the Cathedral Hill campus. Lastly, the Mayor’s office presented on the streetscape provisions of the Development Agreement at all three project sites.


The Supervisors were particularly interested in understanding why the Planning Department determined that the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee (Section 413) was not applicable to the project since many members of the public felt it should be required[2].  The Board was also interested in the Department’s transportation analysis, questioning the accuracy of the Department’s methodology as it relates to traffic, transit and emergency vehicle access, and was interested in the MTA’s involvement in reviewing the CEQA transportation analysis.  The Land Use Committee voted 2-1 to continue the item to the call of the chair.



Appeals:  The appeal of CPMC EIR was heard on Tuesday, 7/17. 

The appellant’s primary concerns with the EIR were related to the EIR’s alternatives, transportation analysis, housing and air quality analysis.  At the beginning of the CPMC’s presentation, their General Council articulated a request for a two week continuance of the EIR appeal hearing. After nearly 7 hours of testimony and discussion, the Board of Supervisors continued the EIR appeal hearing two weeks to July 31st, pending further negotiations on the Development Agreement.  A majority of the Board indicated that if they were to have voted on the adequacy of the EIR that night, they would have voted to uphold the appeal, primarily due to the their perceived inadequacy of: 1) the transportation analysis methodology (which staff noted is consistently applied to all projects); 2) the limited scope of the Project Objectives; and 3) the failure to provide adequate analysis of the housing need for various income levels that would be generated as a result of this project (which staff pointed out is a socio-economic issue, not subject to CEQA review).


Charter Amendment Housing Trust Fund.  This item was referred out of Committee last week.  Per this Commission’s request last week, you’ll find a short memo summarizing this Charter Amendment in you packet for this week.  At the Board hearing this item was continued as required by procedures.  Charter Amendments can't be voted on at their first appearance at the Board.  Hence, the continuance to next week.


  • BF 120774 Permitting a 5’ Ground Floor Ht Increase for Active Ground Floor Uses in the Castro Street and the 24th Street - Noe Valley NCDs.  Ordinance amending the Planning Code by: 1) amending Section 263.20 to permit a five feet ground floor height increase for active ground floor uses in the Castro Street and the 24th Street - Noe Valley NCD; 2) replacing the figure in Section 263.20; 3) conforming amend. to Sections 715.1 and 728.1.  Wiener.
  • BF 120775 Affirming The Board of Supervisor’s Commitment to Ensuring the Long Term Viability and Operation of St. Luke’s Hospital.  Resolution recognizing the importance of St. Luke’s Hospital and emergency room for the SF’s SE Neighborhoods and affirming the Board’s commitment to working with Mayor Lee, DPH, and private hospital corporations that currently operate in San Francisco to ensure the long term viability and operation of this critical institution. (6)  Cohen, Campos, Olague, Chiu, Mar, J Avalos.
  • BF 120773 Reinstating Liquor License Controls and Establishing Conditional Use Requirement for Limited Restaurants in Union Street NCD. Ordinance amending the Planning Code section 725.1 to (1) reinstate controls to prohibit liquor license types 47 and 49 in the Union Street NCD; (2) requiring CU for Limited Restaurants. Wiener and Farrell.
  • BF 120528—Version 2 of Ordinance introduced in response to HPC & PC recommendations. 
  • BF 120241—Version  2 of Ordinance introduced in response to PC recommendations.



In response to your question last week. You had asked if the Pending Ordinance to the Environment Code by adding Chapter 23 to require new and remodeled buildings that have drinking fountains to provide bottle filling stations would apply to all buildings.  In discussion with the Sponsor, Board President Chiu and the PUC, we learned that this requirement would only apply to buildings which were already required to provide drinking fountains.



No meeting this week. 



I will share a few items with you regarding yesterday's Historic Preservation Commission hearing. The Commission will meet only one time this month because of the July 4TH Holiday.

Yesterday, they reviewed and unanimously approved an expansion and rehabilitation of the contributing building to the Market Street Conservation District. The Planning Commission will review the entitlement associated with this project.

The Commission also completed its review of the entitlements for the Veterans Building, the memorial complex across the street. There were two components to the review. The exterior of the building is landmarked. The interior is not included, but designating the ordinance requires the HPC to provide review and comment to the Board of Trustees of any major alterations that occurrs to the interior spaces. After about an hour of public testimony, the Commission approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior of the building. It then began deliberations on the interior work. There were members of the public including many veterans from a variety of different posts that were not in support of the proposal to rehabilitate the interior of the building. The charge was to really look at what the plans articulate in terms of those significant spaces and to the concerns raised by the public, which appears to be an ongoing tenant and landlord dispute. It is related to the use of the property and not really the brick and mortar of the interior of the Veterans Building. With that, the Commission determined that the proposal does sensitively address all of the significant interior spaces. Those comments were forwarded to the Board of Trustees enabling them to continue their entitlement process.

The department received a grant from the Office of Historic Preservation to develop design guidelines for buildings and historic commercial storefronts to minimize impacts to the public realm.  We anticipate that project will began sometime next summer. That concludes my report unless you have any questions.



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


SPEAKERS:     Leo Worsley

                        Re: EIR for area around COIT Tower

                        Dino Delfino

                        Re: 1601 Larkin Street




9.         2012.0814T                                                         (A. JOHN-BAPTISTE: (415) 558-6457)

Amendments to the Transit Impact Development Fee -  The Planning Commission will consider an Ordinance [Board File No. 120523], that would amend the Planning Code by making technical corrections to specified definitions in Section 401 relating to the Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF); amending Sections 408 and 411 to increase TIDF rates and clarify TIDF implementation and collections issues; and making environmental findings, Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications


SPEAKERS:     Steve Kulkin, Sonali Boa

ACTION:           Approved per Staff modifications and Commission amendments

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong



10.        2012.0540C                                                                        (S. Young: (415) 558-6346) 3228 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Lyon Street and Presidio Avenue; Lot 011 in Assessor’s Block 1007 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 724.44 to convert an approximately 2,480 square-foot retail commercial tenant space (last occupied by a retail furniture and accessories store d.b.a. Pierre Deux and now temporarily occupied by a retail clothing store d.b.a. Blu) into a restaurant (d.b.a. Chez Nico) in a one-story commercial building within the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


SPEAKERS:     Andria and Neko – Project Sponsors, Kimberly Ryan, Peter Weathalton

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18668


11.        2012.0547C                                                                              (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1337-1339 GRANT AVENUE - between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 003 of Assessor's Block 0131 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization for live entertainment (Case Nos. 1997.170C and 2005.0433C) within an existing restaurant and bar (dba "Tupelo"), within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, the 40-X Height and Bulk District, the North Beach Special Use District, the North Beach Limited Financial Subdistrict, and the Telegraph Hill-North Beach Residential Special Use District. The proposed amendment would allow amplified live entertainment (defined as "Other Entertainment", pursuant to Planning Code Section 790.38), and would extend the permitted hours of entertainment to 12:00PM Noon to 1:30AM (from the previously-approved hours of 7:00PM to 10:00PM).

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions


SPEAKERS:     Teague – Project Sponsor, Chris Ruscoe, Analiese Panelias, David Bullers, Charles Street, Brian Kenney, Mike Reising, Mike Kisinger, Joe Kyle, Jimmy Leslie,

ACTION:           Approved as amended

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18669




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: 4:34 PM

Adopted on August 9, 2012


[1] One commenter, representing the Marine Fireman's Union, opposed listing his organization's building at 240 2nd Street as a Category III building in Article 11 as proposed or any future listing of their building in Article 10 as a landmark -- which is not currently proposed; and one property owner, who does not currently have a proposed project in the district, expressed concern about the Mello-Roos financing proposal.

[2] [Note: it’s not required b/c the hospital and MOB are considered institutional uses under Section 209.3(a), and institutional uses are not subject to JHL per Section 413.3(a)( &(b)].

Last updated: 8/20/2012 10:11:32 AM