Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mccroskey Legal Question topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises constitutional concern about McCroskey Building demolition during public comment
Summary
A resident asked the commission to investigate whether special legislative carve-outs used to permit demolition of the McCroskey Building may violate California’s constitution; staff took the comment for follow‑up.
During general public comment, Richard Carrillo identified himself as a San Francisco resident (and city employee) and asked the commission to review the legal basis for demolition activity at the McCroskey Building, 1687 Market Street. Carrillo said he had researched state legislation (AB 2011 and AB 2243) and asserted that a narrow statutory provision in AB 2243, section 8, created a special rule permitting a developer to choose provisions of the revised statute for projects submitted before a certain date — a provision he characterized as a ‘‘special statute’’ that could violate the California Constitution.
What he said - Carrillo said he believed the McCroskey Building was not eligible for demolition under the original AB 2011 and that an amendment (AB 2243) loosened a restriction. He said a cross‑reference in section 8 allowed some developers to cherry‑pick provisions and characterized that as legally suspect. - He asked the commission to “look into that a little bit.”
What the commission did - Carrillo’s remarks were taken as public comment. There was no immediate staff response recorded on the record other than that the comment would be noted for follow‑up.
Clarification and limits - The commission record reflects Carrillo’s request for further review; staff or counsel would need to confirm the statutory history and any legal implications. The item was provided to the record as public comment rather than an agenda item requiring immediate action.
