Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellants protest Department’s handling of continuance; Planning Commission agrees to re-notice, continues case to Sept. 18
Summary
Appellants told the Planning Commission the Department removed an appeal (case 2005.0142E at Seventh Avenue) from the calendar without contacting them or securing a commission vote. The commission voted to continue the case to Sept. 18 and to require expanded notice to the 3-11 radius.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on June 5 heard a procedural objection from appellants who said the Planning Department removed an appeal from the calendar without notifying them or obtaining a commission vote. Steve Williams, representing appellants and deemed requesters, told the commission that notice for the matter was more than three years old and that the Department informed him the case had been taken off calendar and given an indefinite continuance without their consent.
Commissioners weighed competing concerns: the appellants’ claim that long delays and lack of notice harmed public participation, and the project sponsor’s explanation that jury duty, newly required historic-survey work ordered by the Board of Supervisors, and technical corrections to the drawings necessitated delay. Project architect Gary Gee described the need for a new site survey, updated demolition calculations and further code checks to resolve egress and footprint issues.
Planning staff proposed ensuring broader notice for the rescheduled hearing and suggested re-mailing to the larger 3-11 radius rather than the narrower immediate-applicant radius. Commissioner Antonini moved to continue Item 1 (case 2005.0142E) to Sept. 18, 2008, and Item 2 (case 2007.1355T) to Aug. 14, 2008; the motion carried on a roll call vote. The commission instructed staff to send expanded notices before the next hearing so neighbors, including those who moved into the area after the original notice, will be informed.
The commission’s action was procedural: it preserved the pending appeal on the commission calendar while directing staff to re-notice. The decision does not resolve the merits of the appeal; appellants maintain they were denied adequate notice and asked the commission to deem the application withdrawn, a request the commission did not grant. The item remains scheduled for the September date with new notice requirements.
What’s next: Item 1 is continued to Sept. 18, 2008; staff will send broader notice to the 3-11 mailing list as discussed.
