this i thought, you mean, it is not already evident, obvious, and enforceable? i have been involved 25 years and it never occurred to me that was not the case. i'm grateful that supervisor campos and others are catching this oversight. because as much as you have heard emphasis on the disability aspect, which is critical, i also want to talk about the family aspect. again, that is why i got involved in pedestrian safety work. when my boys were toddlers and preschoolers, trying to corral them was a task. but it is not just my experience. the family next to me has for kids ages 8 and under. think of a scenario where they have to go to the church clinic somewhere. four kids, mom and dad need

clear space to get in and out, to get to the doctors, to get to the table. you do not want -- to get to the bathroom, to get to the table. you do not want kids wandering around or getting separated from you. it may not be a question of enforcement as much as the fact that there is an education component. let businesses know, let churches know, let clinics no -- what the clinics know. it is helpful to have this as a deterrent. we support this. thank you. supervisor avalos: any other members of the public that would like to comment? please, come forward any what -- and anyone else who would like to comment, please come to the center aisle. >> i am the director of communications at planned

parenthood south pacific. today, we have the health of our organization and the staff and clients that live in our neighbor as well as the san francisco residents of concern. we currently operate 32 centers, serving more than 100,000 women, men, and teenagers each year. we provide life-saving preventive health care services, such as breast and cervical cancer screening, hiv testing, prenatal care, and other essentials services. we also provide education for parents and teenagers and other adults. more than 90% of our clients live two hundred% below the poverty line. the vast majority -- a live two hundred% below the poverty line. the vast majority are women ages 20-24. we now operate more than 40

hours a week. and we see in excess of 50 people per day. we have been so busy we are considering opening on saturdays in a couple of months. but after we were open for a few months, we realized there was a lot of difficulty for our clients to find parking, be able to be dropped off easily. we applied and were granted a white zone by the mta. that was in january of this year while it has been operating very well come upon -- very well, other objects of design made it very difficult for our clients to get in and out of their cars. we are here in support of the ordinance. it will create tremendous help for our clients, for their ability to be dropped off without obstruction. [tone] and also to be protecting

against injury from obstructions in their path. i appreciate the supervisors for their leadership on this issue. we look forward to the upcoming results. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. zeno other member of the public coming forward, we will close public comment. supervisor mar: i want to thank community organizations and supervisor campos and supervisor avalos for bringing this forward. i would like to be added to this. supervisor avalos: very good. problems, can we accept the amendment from supervisor campos? ok, we will accept the amendment. we can move to move forward with recommendations. so done. supervisor mar: mr. chairman, if

i may again thank all of the members of the public for being here. if i may just add something about ms. johnson, i think it is appropriate. our pedestrian safety legislation is the last item that she will be sitting in on as a clerk. i do not know what the city is going to be doing without her, but we wish her the best of luck. it has been an honor for me to work with someone who is such a part of the institution. supervisor olague: i want to wish you the best and thank you for all of your help. i was recently appointed in january, and you have been very gracious and nights, and i want to say thank you for that. i hope you enjoy your free time now. i want to wish you the best. i'm sure you will be busier than you have been in the past 30 something years. thank you very much. supervisor campos: i was just going to thank you for way more

than three decades of serving san francisco. it has been a pleasure working with you as well. thank you. supervisor avalos: it has been an honor to work with you. i recall a few times where i am going home at 9:30 p.m., maybe 10:00 p.m. at night. you are coming not from city hall, but something you are doing out in the city -- going to in museum or going out. and i know you enjoy your free time and i know you enjoy traveling. i wish you many years to enjoy all the things that you want to do. i hope you can come back and visit us as well. >> i want to thank you, the whole committee. i have enjoyed working with you over the years. and i want to thank the full board. i appreciate the kindness that you have shown to me. i am retiring, and of course, i have mixed feelings about it, but i have enjoyed serving the

citizens all these years and working with you. again, thank you so much for the well wishes. supervisor avalos: you are welcome. madam clerk, is that it? no other items before us? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. supervisor avalos: enjoy your many years at you. >> thank you very much.

>> this is a special meeting of

the san francisco planning commission for thursday, june 7, 2012. let rame remind everyone to turn off or silence our cell phones. any other electronic device that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner sugaya? >> [roll call] before you this morning is a potential hearing that could go into closed session for 16 01 market. the pursfirst item before you is the matter that could be discussed in closed session. commissioner fong: public

comment? >> hello. my name is melanie grossman. i have been asked to read a brief letter from the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. csfn strongly supports the effort to reduce historic buildings. it opposes progress of demolition tactics to win process approval. they believe san francisco will greatly benefit only of the historic preservation laws and ceqa laws are strictly enforced. also, i am here as a representative of the older women's league, and we have an interest in low-cost housing for older people. we believe in making sure that

seniors can remain in san francisco as they age, that they are not priced out of the city because of housing. we also believe in quality of life for seniors, and i think this site would be great, not only for housing, but using the building as a community resource where older people could meet, have their meetings, get together, and people of all ages, all generations could get together. we really need this in our neighborhood, which as you know is very densely populated. i am also a resident of russian hill and think we need a community space in our neighborhood. thank you. commissioner fong: linda chapman. >> linda chapman. i was asked to deliver the

letter that you just heard part of. they took a position of this site what it originally came up. they have are really serious concern about undoing ceqa and violating it. when they say there is a historic resource that has to be analyzed, it also says you cannot progress of we demolish and destroy the historic resources and then say it is in such terrible shape. well, there will be when you poll of the stucco and things like that. and when you have of the interior and show pictures. after being a modest by the planning commission and after receiving an eir saying you cannot do this. it would be a terrible precedent if we allowed it to be defeated that way.

i also brought your letters. i sent out an e-mail, but it was quite late. i will give this to you about one of the laws fithat is being litigated right now. steve taper is a lawyer for many churches and many non-profit housings and has successfully handled claims for other churches. as he points out, there is no coverage for this, because this is a commercial transaction. it covers religious activities. if you said -- let's save the theater but was bought for a church, it was ok to be cuter -- theater, but you cannot assemble as a church. he has successfully handle cases like that in the east bay. this is not one. he believes it is a terrible precedent if you allow yourself to be influenced like that, because the whole city is full

of commercial properties owned by the catholic church and other properties. this is a slippery slope to allow them to say you are discriminating against it. and the other thing is, who is really behind this? is it really the methodist church? i did not think so with my various contacts in the methodist church. i believe we have a real possibility for resolution. their name has to be on the suit for sure, because the developer does not have standing. they may have felt they had to do this under contract. it is my belief a contractor cannot say they will do it under law that does not apply. their interest is a non-profit housing. what do people really need? they wanted to sell for non- profit development. originally they did not find a buyer. it has been an unhappy

experience, and they have made a policy that they are doing elsewhere that they will not engage in this kind of transaction elsewhere. right now they are still in a contract, may be that they need to get out of. please consider these things. it is not relevant to the other alternative. >> good morning. 1601 larkin settled for a settlement conference. boy, i would love to sit in that room. they are typically granted to a project that has benefit to the community. in 2004 this was a water-tight church property. it is for elderly housing, japanese elderly housing and

shows the care and wisdom of recycling the buildings for continued social use. since 2004 we have had no transfer of ownership, no increase in property tax and an application made to develop plans for quality resources in the church. creamers hand. -- kramer's hand. tndc looking and seeing a project they could successfully accomplish. wanting to cut down trees around the property. pieces of the building falling off, more leaks in different areas of the building the historic preservation review demonstrating the building is a landmark quality. the building immediately after that report been allies to the

door hardware removed. the flooring taken out of the bottom floor and put into a restaurant commercial venture downtown. no on-site market rate housing from the settlement. it is the same large project. do not be in a subtle -- hurry to settle here. i can understand why they might settle, because there will not get anywhere in court, but i do not think the city should sell the site to the city. it is the same large property, just in a different skin. that does not solve the problems it had. that does not make a landmark church go away as an issue. this property could be recycled

and reused for this community, and it would be a welcome benefits to build a new on the parking lot with in the church building itself, saving the corner room for the same type of purpose, of meeting space, a place to celebrate the lives of all who live there. thank you very much. >> any additional public comment? there appears to be none. now closing public comment. >> now you can consider a motion on whether to assert the attorney/client privilege regarding the matter listed below to have a conference with your legal counsel. commissioner miguel: i move we

go into closed session with the session with legal regarding the item below. to go on the motion to go into conference with legal counsel, commissioner -- >> on the motion to go into closed conference with legal counsel. >> in so doing, you need to report on any action taken during the closed session and consider a motion on whether or not to disclose the discussion during the closed session. i move not to disclose what happened during closed session. >> second. >> [calling roll]

unanimous not to disclose any part of the discussion during close session. will there be any report of any action taken during a closed session? >> know. with that, the special meeting is concluded. -- no. >> we are adjourned, and the regular hearing will start at 1:00.

>> i pledge allegiance to the flight of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. secretary: can you please tu