SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Special Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 28, 2005

1:00 PM

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sue Lee;Michael J. Antonini; Shelley Bradford Bell; 

                         Kevin Hughes; William L. Lee; Christina Olague

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Dwight S. Alexander

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh, Dan Sider, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:10 PM

 

 

A.   SPECIAL CALENDAR

 

The Planning Commission will open the hearing on this item for an information presentation and to take public comment for approximately 30 minutes.  The Planning Commission will not adjourn this Special Meeting on July 28, 2005, but will continue the item.  Public comment will remain open.  The Commission will not take any action on the item on July 28, 2005, but may act to approve or disapprove the ordinance at a future hearing.

 

2005.0524T                                               (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS PLUS TEXT AMENDMENTS   - Consideration of an Ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number 050601] which would establish a “Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation Process” by (a) adding Chapter 36 to the Administrative Code in order to set forth uniform procedures for developing comprehensive neighborhood plans, (b) amending Administrative Code Section 3.4 to provide for integrated budget documents, and (c) adding Section 312A to the Planning Code regarding discretionary review for projects located within plan areas.

Preliminary Recommendation: Commission Holds Public Hearing

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

                        THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL HEARING ONLY.

 

                        SPEAKERS:

                        George Williams

1. He was the SPUR representative that worked with Supervisor McGoldrick on this legislation.
2. The goal was to establish a better way to bring about neighborhood planning.

Joe Boss

1. There are a lot of concerns/ confusions and so forth coming from some communities.
2. This legislation is being driven by a vary unique coalition.
3. We did not have closed doors.  There were people who discussed things with us.
4. This is not a single process.

Dennis Antenore

1. Worked with Supervisor McGoldrick for the last two years on drafting this legislation.  Was motivated by the fact that when he was a member of this Commission, it was during the dot com, there were tremendous impacts from developments in neighborhoods, particularly in the eastern side of the City.

Calvin Welch

1. The entire thrust of this legislation is to place on equal footing community interest especially in regard to the impacts of major development plans in San Francisco.
2. The whole objective of this exercise has been as public as possible to involve as many people in the planning process.

Steve Currier

1. He absolutely disagrees that this has been a public process.
2. There was no public input.
3. Found about it just a week ago.

Jeffrey Leibovitz

1. This is the first time he is seeing this legislation
2. He did not get a phone call from anybody who claims that this is a public process. 

Kate White

1. The intention of this legislation is to institutionalize this very successful program and to ensure intensive community input into planning.  To make sure that these plans just do not sit on the shelf, but actually have an implementation section, stragedies for funding public improvements, that neighborhood groups have a say and an ongoing over site of these plans.

Tess Wellborn

1. What this legislation does is set up a way that all neighborhoods, residents, and/or business can be involved.

Fernando Marti

1. Expressed his concerns about the lack of public input.

Peter Cohen

1. It is important to consider this legislation in the context of increasing regional pressure on San Francisco for higher density of in-fill development.

Judy Berkowitz

1. Respectfully requested that the Commission send a letter urging  the Board of Supervisors  to immediately extend to September 28, 2005 the prescribed time within which the Planning Commission may make its decision on the proposed Better Neighborhoods Plus.

Marilyn Amini

1. Spoke about the inadequacy of the public notice.

Penelope Clark

1. Just recently received notice of this legislation and has not had a chance to bring it back to her neighborhood group for their review.
2. We need to have more studies.
3. She hopes the Commission will ask the Board of Supervisors for an extension.

Jennifer Clary

1. Not enough public notification.

Ellen Kernaghan

-She is appalled and dismayed to learn of the self appointed panel that has developed this legislation.

1. This ordinance has not had public participation.
2. For the last two years they have been having secret meetings.

Chris Selig

1. Supports the legislation.
2. Asked the Commission to not delay this legislation because the importance of community benefits is in their rezoning process.

ACTION:              Meeting held.  The public hearing remains open.  Continued to August 4, 2005.

AYES:                S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague

                        ABSENT:         W. Lee and Alexander

 

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNIGN COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 2, 2006.

 

SPEAKERS:            None

ACTION:            Approved

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

ABSENT:            Alexander