Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 350 San Jose Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Planning Commission to delay 350–352 San Jose Ave over eviction and notice concerns
Summary
Neighbors and community groups urged the commission to extend the continuance for 350–352 San Jose Avenue to 60 days and to re-notify neighbors after alleged notice errors and tenant evictions; staff said the 03/11 notice was inadequate and a longer continuance and re-notification were reasonable.
Neighbors and housing advocates urged the San Francisco Planning Commission on April 16 to delay review of a proposed project at 350–352 San Jose Avenue after they said the project’s 03/11 notice was deficient and that tenants had been evicted.
Ozzie Rehm of the NOI Neighborhood Council and the San Francisco Land Use Coalition asked the commission to postpone the hearing for 60 days so the Planning Department could correct the notice, allow supervisors to convene meetings with neighbors and give the public time to review corrected drawings. "The public deserves to be re-notified," Rehm said, arguing that 30 days would not be sufficient to address alleged errors and omissions.
Kathy Lipscomb, a Noe Valley neighbor, told commissioners she was “furious” at reports that tenants had been evicted with no buyout records, calling the prospect of luxury redevelopment after evictions “outrageous” and urging delay.
David Winslow, the department architect, told the commission staff had reviewed the matter with the zoning administrator and concluded the 03/11 notification was inadequate and would require re-notification. Winslow said modest drawing corrections could be executed quickly by the architect but that supervisor-led community meetings and additional notice justified a longer continuance.
Commissioners debated the request: some said the supervisorial office had requested 30 days but supported a longer period to allow re-notification and neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Imperial explicitly supported a 60-day continuance "because the community deserves to be re-notified." The commission ultimately moved — and unanimously approved — a motion that continued numerous items, including scheduling item 16 (the San Jose project) for June 18, effectively allowing more time for outreach and revisions.
Action taken: the commission continued item 16 to June 18 (60 days) and directed staff to work with the supervisorial office and project sponsor on re-notification and revisions. The transcript records the parties and the staff determination about the notice; the hearing did not adjudicate the underlying eviction claims, which remain allegations raised by public commenters.
