San Francisco Planning Department : October 15, 2009

October 15, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 15, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Ben Fu, Elizabeth Watty, Jonas Ionin, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Diego Sanchez, Sophie Hayward, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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. 2009.0322C (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

617 SANSOME STREET - between Jackson and Washington Streets, Assessor's Block 0196; Lot 002 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 249.25 and 303 of the Planning Code to change the legal use of the property from retail use to office use. The subject property is within a C-2 (Community Business) District with a 65-A Height and Bulk District, the Jackson Square Special Use District, and within the Jackson Square Historic District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 12, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

2a. 2006.0431CEKV (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1080 SUTTER STREET - north side between Hyde and Larkin Streets - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 157 for off-street parking in excess of accessory amounts (up to 39 spaces when the Code would permit 14) and Section 253 for height above 40 feet in a Residential District, to permit a new 11-story residential building with approximately 36 dwelling units, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0279, in a an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to December 3, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

2b. 2006.0431CEKV (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1080 SUTTER STREET - north side between Hyde and Larkin Streets - Request for granting of Variances of Planning Code standards for rear-yard area (Section 134), projections over streets and alleys (Section 136) and dwelling-unit exposure (Section 140) to permit a new 11-story residential building with approximately 35 dwelling units, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0279, in a an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to December 3, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

B. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

3. 2009.0866C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2559-2567 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - east side of San Bruno Avenue between Burrows and Felton Streets; Lot 045 in Assessor's Block 5438 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 to allow reduction in the off-street parking requirement for dwelling units for the conversion of existing off-street parking spaces to a new meeting room for the existing community service use, dba "Portola and Excelsior Family Connections," in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

MOTION: 17962

4. 2009.0804C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

3505 B – 17^TH STREET - southwest corner of Guerrero Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3578 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.44 and 790.91, to allow a small self-service restaurant (dba Clare's Deli) within the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Ms. Ribanyi

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

MOTION: 17963

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

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.

5. Consideration of Adoption:

Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 24, 2009.
Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 1, 2009

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

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:

I'd like to comment on an article in today's Chronicle talking about pedestrian safety. It was very well written and it makes some points that I think are well [worth] noting. One is that we have some special situations in San Francisco. We have around about 500,000 non-residents who visit San Francisco on a given day, which is very important to our economy and something we want to encourage, but many do come by car and I think a couple of ideas are is we can make the rest of the city as accessible by transit as downtown and Union Square and Civic Center areas are, I think it would tend to have fewer people bring cars in from outside the city. We know that a very high percentage of people who work in the financial district and live outside San Francisco don't bring their cars in because they have to do something with them all day.

The other thing that is not mentioned in the article is that we have a huge problem serving as a conduit in the north south direction between the Peninsula and Marine County. A lot of the traffic through there is traffic that really doesn't want to stop here but just trying to get through. I don't know what the solution is – obviously not a return to the freeway idea, which was wisely dismissed in the 50's, but I think there has to be some way to move this traffic without it being part of the neighborhoods of San Francisco.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I'd like to bring up a procedural issue. This has to do with Commissioner comments where there are specific kinds of actions, I guess if you want to call it that, to be taken. And some recent emails that we have received with the note at the bottom that says something to the effect that I think the Chairman or the President can work with staff on bringing something forward or if there is commissioner interest, which I think is noted as being at least four people. My question is, if I bring something up, or any commissioner brings something up, how does one then get that particular consent? I don't want to call it approval. Because if we take a vote, isn't that supposed to be calendared? Or we can't do nodding of heads here, so.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Commissioner Sugaya, if I can respond somewhat to it. The note at the bottom is referring to a hearing – when a commissioner is asking for a hearing with another body. And usually because it takes staff time from another entity as well as ours to put those together, in the past, long before you came onto the Commission, it was established that either the Chair, the President or whoever was chairing that meeting, or a consensus of the Commission (the body) four members had to agree to that for it to be valid, for it to move forward. But a request for information does not require that consensus.

Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacy:

Commissioner Sugaya you asked whether the Commission could take a vote to set something on an agenda. There is language on your agenda that would allow the Commission to do that. Under Commission Comments and Questions there is a sub-section entitled /Future Meetings & Agendas and there the notice is placed that the Commission may take action to set items on the agenda for the next meeting or other future meetings. So if the Commission were to take a vote to put an item on the agenda, that notice is on your agenda for the Commission to do that.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I'm sorry I missed that. I guess we never read that. If that is the case, then I'd like to repeat last week's concern of mine, which was to at least have an informational hearing on Proposition D with respect to the Department's analysis of the Proposition. The Department's analysis was not one that took any positions on the Proposition, either for or against, but was an objective analysis with respect to some of its impacts or implications or whatever on existing planning law and procedural matters. It seems to me that that's the kind of thing that the public should be entitled to hear at least. And to repeat myself or others, the issue of commissioners then perhaps straying on the side of inadvertently saying something that might indicate their support or disapproval of the measure I think can be handled either by not saying anything or being fairly careful about objectivity and a question or something like that. But I believe that commissioners are here and are perfectly able to discern the difference between what is supporting a measure or what may not be supporting a measure. I'd like to place that on the agenda.

Commissioner Miguel:

Is there other consensus concerning that?

Commissioners Olague and Moore (in the background):

Yes

Commissioner Antonini:

I'd speak against it because number one, we are getting very close to the actual election. The issue has already been on the ballot for quite some time. And I think there is the possibility that even though we may have a very balanced and objective presentation dealing with some problems that may be seen with the implementation of a particular measure, it very easily could be mis reported in the press, which we have no control over and that would be a very unfortunate situation. I do remember one that we did have on Prop 98. It was not a staff presentation. It was some other agency. I think it was a State agency, I can't remember, but I don't feel that was a balanced presentation. I would think that it is probably better to stay away from this.

Commissioner Miguel:

Before anyone else speaks, someone can move that it be placed on calendar. We can have a vote if someone wished to do so.

Commissioner Moore:

I would first like to disagree with Commissioner Antonini. I respectively disagree. I believe that the competence of the Department is [ ], which are procedural as well as interpretation of planning law, and the report as it stands, put together in a very competent way should be part of the public realm discussion. And I believe that even if we don't make any further comment, if all of us would be bound to silence, that report has its validity and I think it's an acknowledgement of the Department's work to do so and have the public benefit from it. So I would like to suggest that we move to ask for an additional meeting with the interpretation that the City Attorney gave us a few minutes ago.

Commissioner Olague:

Again, I just think this an issue that we can sit silent and not really respond to. But because of the implication that it has around how the city, I think it has some direct relationship to planning and it would impact how planning is done in the city at a very minimum. And if it does move forward and it is passed in November, then I think we as commissioners need to be familiar and aware of what those implications would be. I think with Proposition, was it H, that had to do with parking and downtown parking, we also had a hearing on that. So I think that whenever there is a ballot measure that has direct affect on how planning is done in the city, then at a minimum we should have some kind of an informational hearing so that we're kept informed of what those matters are. And if it doesn't pass, then it doesn't pass, but I think it is something that is worthy of a discussion before November.

Commissioner Miguel:

I would support this motion because of the fact that it is not in the normal realm of political matters, but directly affects the Planning Department. The Planning Department controls the present sign ordinance; it deals with the inventory; it deals with the details; and it deals with the enforcement. And even though this is a somewhat separate deal, I feel that it is pertinent to the Department.

Commissioner Antonini:

Two comments on this: The first is that I would assume that the staff report is part of the public docket and the public could get that information if they wanted to. I think that would serve the purpose of informing the public of the staff's position without having to have a hearing. The other comment I would have is we've done this often times in the formulative stages of these measures so that as they are being formulated we weigh in on the land use implications and for one reason or another, we didn't do that this one before it was actually brought forwarded as part of the ballot.

Commissioner Lee:

I'd like to get some guidance from the City Attorney's office: When the Historical Preservation Commission ordinance was proposed by the Board of Supervisors, I can not recall, we did have a hearing, but this was before it became an issue on the ballot. Is that correct?

Director Rahaim:

My recollection was that we did a memo to you, which was the subject of a public hearing analyzing the draft of the referendum before it was actually officially on the ballot.

Commissioner Lee:

So I assume the City Attorney's Office is silent on this, if we have a hearing or not have a hearing, but I guess for some guidance here, is there an issue if someone discusses like with SPUR the pros and cons, or the Ballot Simplification Committee, they issue through the electoral process your voter handbook – would any one of those two organizations, which is already public information, would that predispose us to the general public that we are taking a certain position if we do have this hearing?

Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacy:

Commissioner Lee, the Commission itself needs to conduct this as an informational hearing that commissioners shouldn't take positions; staff shouldn't take positions; and it should be as balanced and as fair a hearing as possible. Clearly the Commission cannot control public comment and doesn't need to control public comment, but it would be helpful to keep the Commission hearing as balanced as possible and to allow all sides of the issue to be heard in as objective a way as possible.

Commissioner Borden:

I'm fine with holding a hearing. I just want to point out a practical matter that the election is November 3^rd and today is the 15^th and we only have one other hearing prior to November 3^rd because we don't meet on the 29^th. So, just something to think about. If we are going to have this hearing, t pretty much has to be next week and we have to decide whether we'd rather have a morning special item or something because it looks like our calendar for the 22^nd is pretty full.

Commissioner Olague:

Yeah, I'm comfortable with having it next week if staff, I believe it was Mr. Sider who prepared the memo, I don't know if he would be available or not, but I would be more comfortable with it [the report] coming from staff because it is an objective body and other organizations like SPUR do indorse measures like this. I believe they took no position on this one, but never-the-less, they are an indorsing body so I would feel more comfortable with the objectivity of the Department handling the presentation. So I would like to see it calendared for next week.

NOTE: The Commission passed a motion to calendar an informational presentation/discussion on Proposition D at 10 a.m. on October 22, 2009 (+6 -1) with Commissioner Antonini voting against.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioners, we will try and get out another copy of the Prop D memo. It probably will be sent to you by email tomorrow or Monday. I will work with Mr. Sider to get it out. I haven't seen to day. I think he is out sick. I hope you will appreciate if it's a little late and understand the circumstances.

Commissioner Olague:

We have it already

Commission Secretary Avery:

Even if you have it, it still needs to go out because the public needs to get it.

Commissioner Miguel:

The only other item under Commission Matters is I was a guest of the Neighborhood Network last Friday. And I also had the pleasure of listening to a presentation by David Baker on Transit Oriented Development. It dealt mainly with suburbia rather than San Francisco, although there were comments regarding the 16^th and 24^th Street BART Stations in the city.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Good afternoon commissioners. It's good to be back. As many of you know, I was in Montréal and upstate New York for the last two weeks. As you recall, I spoke a couple of time at { } University in Montréal at their invitation, which [ ] is the one university in the city that is permitted to teach in English. It is a very interesting discussion about how that happened in Montréal and Quebec and the whole history of that whole issue. They were particularly interested in our work on the Better Streets Plan and our neighborhood planning.

I also want to mention that many of you have received emails from Mr. Meko on the Western SOMA EIR and I just want to mention what the current thinking is on this issue. The issue primarily is whether we would consider a somewhat higher density alternative in the EIR analysis. We are at the stage in the EIR where we need to determine that one way or another. My current thinking and this is a call that I have to make in the next week or so, is that it is an appropriate planning practice to consider another alternative. We have to look at the existing conditions and we have to look at the preferred alternative. So the only question is whether we would consider a higher density alternative. I believe there is reason to consider a somewhat higher density alternative so that in the future if we are considering somewhat higher density zoning on some parts of the plan area, it would give us that option. I simply think its good planning practice to analyze alternatives. I will continue to have that discussion with the West SOMA Task Force and hear their concerns. I fully realize that this not an alternative that they had discussed in their process, but at this point it is only and EIR analysis. It is not as if we are saying that this is something that we are recommending approval of. It is simply to analyze if from an EIR standpoint. There I think it would be a good idea for us to consider this higher density alternative so that we could look and have the option in the future should we chose to move in that direction. I know this has been the subject of some emails and I just wanted to tell you what my thinking is on it.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioner Moore you asked about 617 Sansome Street and why it was being continued again. The project sponsor is working with the community to resolve some of the issues of not providing retail at the location. They had a meeting earlier this month and they are re-drafting the plans and hopefully will respond to the concerns that the neighborhood had and bring it to you. So it is an on going discussion and it sounds like it is being fruitful and maybe it will come to you with the support of the neighborhood.

Last week there was a request to the Commission instead of me I guess that the 100 32^nd Avenue variance decision be reissued because it was claimed that the variance decision letter be mailed to one of the project sponsors. Unfortunately that was inadvertently not done. We did the research and found that that request was made. I have re-issued the decision letter today with today's date. It will have ten days for appeal. It was emailed to everyone we knew who was interested and also mailed to Mr. Garfinkle and Mr. Williams.

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Rules Committee:

Ordinance to amend the qualifications of the number of members of the Eastern Neighborhoods Citizens Advisory Committee – This Commission heard this on May 21^st and recommended 8 amendments. In general, the Commission (1) wanted CAC members to be appointed by elected officials; 2) the members gained voting status only when the area they represent also contributes the impact fees to the fund; 3) the additional representation for the Mission District; 4) the wanted to ensure that the final makeup of the Committee maintained the current balance between Mayoral and Board appointees and maintained an odd number of persons to facilitate a position by vote. The Rules Committee heard it this morning and incorporated 7 of the 8 recommendations. The only recommendation not incorporated was the appointment process for the Board's non-voting members. These members will be appointed by the West SOMA Citizen's Task Force and confirmed by the Board. The ordinance as amended was forwarded with a recommendation of approval to the full Board.
This Monday at 1:00 p.m., the Land use Committee will consider the Discretionary Review (DR) proposal that this Commission forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. I have been told that this will be an informational hearing only and the Committee will not take action this Monday. People should certainly feel free to attend to voice their concerns and opinions and support, but there will be another hearing after this one that is tentatively scheduled for November 2, 2009. I wanted to let you and the public know that Monday's hearing is only informational.

BOARD OF APPEALS:

None

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

None

9. (b. fu: (415) 558-6813)

333 Fremont Street - Informational Presentation on the status of Conditional Use authorization for an 88-unit project approved under Motion No. 17044 on June 16, 2005. The project sponsor has requested, through a letter of determination, that the Zoning Administrator extend the approval period. The Project proposes no modifications to the approved project.

SPEAKERS: Michelle Nolasco for Richard Kaufman

ACTION: Informational only. No action

E. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

SPEAKERS:

Rebecca Delgado Rottman:

RE: Academy of Art University

Jim Meko

RE: Activities of Western SOMA Task Force

REGULAR CALENDAR

10. 2008.1157C (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

10 BERNAL HEIGHTS BOULEVARD - west side of Bernal Heights Park, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 5548 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303 to allow new WTS antennas on an existing communications tower at the top of the hill in Bernal Heights Park. The CU will also modify the original Conditional Use approval under Case No. CU60.13 (Resolution 5313) to establish the existing tower configuration, and antennas on the site. The project site is within the RH-1(D) (Residential, House, Single-Family, Detached) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The site is a Location Preference Number 1, as it is a preferred location for a publicly used structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: Rick Hersh – Representative of T-Mobile; Terry Milne- requested they plant trees; Lisa Hamenson – Representative of American Tower and T-Mobile

ACTION: Approved with conditions as modified to require landscaping to screen base of tower and the building

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee and Moore

NAYES: Olague and Sugaya

MOTION: 17964

11. 2009.0584DD (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

3900 22^ND STREET - west side between Collingwood and Castro Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 2770 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.07.14.2590, to convert a three-family structure into a two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: David Wilbur – DR Requestor; Ms. Peabody Bradford – Project Sponsor

ACTION: Following hearing, continued to November 5, 2009. The public hearing remains open.

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

12a. 2009.0107D (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams – Representative DR Requestor, Chris Cole – DR Requestor: Speakers in support of DR: Peter Rudolfi, Juliet Swit, Chet Roaman, Christine Kristen – Starr King Open Space Board, Aaron Peters, David Glober – Starr King Open Space, Christopher Sabre, Jean Loura, Caroline Bird – Starr King Open Space, Jennifer Baker, Andrew Tabb, Richard McDerby, Jean Neblett – Potrero Boosters, Webb Green – Starr King Open Space, Dick Millet – Potrero Boosters, Betsy Davis, Dale Scott – Starr King Open Space & Starr King Elementary, Christina Quiroz – Starr King Elementary, Joe Boss – Dog Patch, Christa Conforti, [Un-named speaker], Victor Conforti, Natalie Conforti – direct neighbor, Tony Kelley; Speakers in support of the project: Alan Pacaso – Representative of the Project Sponsor, Ernestine Weiss, Ami Hert, Torben Torp-Smith, Anne Bleyle, Michael Martin, Maj Mughannam, Alex Mughannam, Katherine Mughannam, Theodore Brown – Project Architect, Marissa Styles, David Zapata, Leonard Krasowski, Eric Sohneider, Tony Perel, Andrew Junius – Representing the Project Sponsor in rebuttal

ACTION: The Commission did not take DR and approved the demolition

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Olague and Sugaya

DRA: 0112

12b. 2008.0505 DDDV (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

1321 DEHARO STREET - east side of DeHaro Street between 24^th Street and 25^th Street; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 4218 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.04.03.8738 to construct a three family dwelling as a replacement structure to the proposed demolition of a single family dwelling within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. Two separate Public Initiated Discretionary Review requests regarding the replacement structure have also been filed and will be considered at this hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve replacement structure

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a

ACTION: The Commission took DR and approved with modifications to eliminate the garage or allow one on DeHaro Street; the Commission would support a variance if necessary; re-sculpt or re-design (no higher than current proposal in rear at 19' 3 ) to minimize impact on open space; the Commission would support/consider a reduction to the unit count

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

DRA: 0113

12c. 2008.0505DDDV (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

1321 DEHARO STREET - east side of DeHaro Street between 24^th Street and 25^th Street; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 4218 - Request for Rear Yard Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134, to allow a rear yard of 15 feet where a rear yard of 28 feet is required within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The variance request will be heard and considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance

13. 2008.1409I (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER (CPMC) INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN (IMP) - Public Hearing on California Pacific Medical Center's Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The IMP contains information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use of affiliated buildings, and future development plans. The IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department's website (from www.sfplanning.org click Publications & Reports and then Institutional Master Plans ).

Recommendation: No action required. This is an informational item only.

SPEAKERS: Geoff Nelson – CPMC, Judy Lee – CPMC, Bishop Marc Andrus – Episcopal Diocese of California, [A group of tenants from 1054 Geary Blvd.], Dr. Edward Kersh, Angeline Giovannoni – RN at CPMC/St. Lukes, Sheila Mahoney, Dr. Kathy Lewis – Chair, Department of Pediatrics at CPMC, Lai Chan – RN at CPMC, Elissa Hallen – RN at CPMC/St. Lukes, Mauricio Santos – Health First patient, Vu Nguyen – SEIU, Clint Mitchell – Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association, Steve Hammond – San Jose/Guerrero Coalition, Laurel Muniz – Northwest Bernal Alliance, Marlayne Morgan – Cathedral Hill Neighbors, Jonathan Beaver – Harvey Milk, Colleen Leonard, Paul Wermer, Dr. Amy Kelly – UCSF, Ms. Ollie Marie Victoire, Diana Ward, Mark Zier – Pacific Heights Residents Association, Christopher Bowman, Kira Eldemir, Beverly McCallister – Pacific Heights Residents Association, Rupert McCaonell, Pierre Gasztowtt, Jane Martin, Linda Carter, Reiko Furuya, Eileen Prendiville, Sue Galassi – RN, Dr. Yagya Kapila – Committee of Doctors for Corp & Govt Healthcare Responsibility, Lois Scott – CHN, Bernie Choden – SFT, CHN, Sue Hestor – SFRG, Trevor Weyland, Brenda Washington, Maryann Carnock, Joseph Bolden – Poor Magazine.Org, Sherrie Matza, Zach Geargopoulos – Cathedral Hill Neighbors Associaiton, Claire Bohman – UUSF, Jonica Brooks Yanika – CPMC, Andrea Saint-Priz – patient, Ted Hoffman – CPMC Foundation, Rick Herrero – Herrero Contractors, Tay Via – Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, Rob Black – SF Chamber of Commerce, Steve Seyfert – DeMarillac Academy, Jim Thompson – Next Parking, Joel Koppel – SF Electrical Construction Industry, Paul Reiser – CPMC, Patrick Carney, Rick Hauptman – North Mission Neighbors, Dr. Rishi Kapila, Jo/Mary Fang – Circuit City, David Long – Sutter Program Manager, Kevin McCormack – CPMC, [Un-named speaker read a letter from Ed Chan], Doug Whyte – CPMC/St. Lukes, Gus Hernandez – The Marchese Co., Jessica Kelly – Engineer, Emily Danuco – RN at CPMC, Manny Flores – Local 22, Lloring Wylie – Sr. Engineer – Degenkolb, Kathy Sforzo – CPMC, Mary Lanier – CPMC, Dionne Miller – CPMC, Hiroshi Fukuda – Richmond Community Association, Hossein Sepas, Ms. G. Gillett

ACTION: Following hearing and Commission deliberation, continued to November 19, 2009 at a 10: a.m. special hearing. The public hearing remains open

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee

G. 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

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

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 11:28 p.m.

Adopted: November 5, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:41 PM