State your name for the record. Id like to take roll at this time. [roll call] commissioners first on your agenda is consideration for items proposed for continuance. Item one, at 1439 to 1431 south van ness avenue. Discretionary review is proposed to continue wants to february 1, 2018. Item two, at 3314 cesar chavez street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to february 8, 2018. Item three, at 1713 yosemite avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to march 1. Item four, at 479 28th street. Conditional use authorization is proposed to continue continuance to march 1, 2018. And case number five at 1815 mission street. Large project authorization has been withdrawn. I have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Great. Thank you, jonas. Any Public Comment on the items being proposed for continuance . On sfgov tv overhead, please . Hello. Frank gladstone. This is regarding four, 28th street. I represent the
We have for the commission, simply, the report format. If you have any recommendations for how we present the information. The level of information for different sections, if you would like to see more or less. The performance measures, if you have any recommendations for performance measures. And there are programs and projects. The landmarks designation also has a process section that outlines the process for designations. If you would like to see something similar, we can attempt that. Right now, theres not a clear process for Cultural Heritage district nomination, but we can take a stab at it. And look at what has been done in the past and maybe give a best practices guideline there. And then last, had some recommendations for other report sections you might be interested in including potential future projects, any Public Outreach work that were doing or planning on completing, and then any nondepartmental Cultural Heritage work if we have a Current Events section things that we he
Street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to february 8, 2018. Item three, at 1713 yosemite avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to march 1. Item four, at 479 28th street. Conditional use authorization is proposed to continue continuance to march 1, 2018. And case number five at 1815 mission street. Large project authorization has been withdrawn. I have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Great. Thank you, jonas. Any Public Comment on the items being proposed for continuance . On sfgov tv overhead, please . Hello. Frank gladstone. This is regarding four, 28th street. I represent the Property Owner. Were requesting continuance until march 1. Im pleased to tell you that the adjacent neighbour whos most opposed to this by the name of annemarie zabala was kind enough to write this email to the staff. And its here on the overhead, indicating her agreement to a march 1 continuance. The plans were show
Background on that. This language and thrust of this is really a basic tran parency issue. It would provide a way for these who recuse under the law, to do so for a good thing, in order to avoid conflicts. It would give the public a chance to understand repeated recusals, so there would be an opportunity to engage. If there is a repeated recusal, and well get into how this would calculate that, there is a process for the Ethics Commission to review those recusals, and determine if there is a continued conflict that exists for that board or Commission Member, and the commission can recommend that maybe this commissioner should be sit in that role. Its a transparency tool and a way to avoid significant conflict in city decision making. What this would create is a system thats parallel to whats been in service in los angeles for a number of years. Each time a commissioner appears on an agenda, there would be tools for the Commission Member to do that. The form would be filed with our offi
We dont include the board of supervisors there. So i will turn it over to the City Attorney. Thank you, pat. This is something that we took a very close comment following a comment from the first budget and finance committee, and also hearing comments others made around the time about that. I think in hearing the questions, there were a number of questions about what is the reaccusal views purpose, and how would we count this 1 trigger for a review, so i just wanted to provide a bit of background on that. This language and thrust of this is really a basic tran parency issue. It would provide a way for these who recuse under the law, to do so for a good thing, in order to avoid conflicts. It would give the public a chance to understand repeated recusals, so there would be an opportunity to engage. If there is a repeated recusal, and well get into how this would calculate that, there is a process for the Ethics Commission to review those recusals, and determine if there is a continued co