To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

November 5, 2009

November 5, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, November 5, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 2:04 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Adrian Putra, Michael Smith, AnMarie Rodgers, Steve Smith, Corey Teague, Shelly Caltagirone, Sharon Lai, Aaron Starr, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2009.0841T (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

Planning Code Amendment - Demolition and Replacement of Sound Housing. [Board File No. 09-1038] - Ordinance amending the Planning Code by amending Section 317 to require the Planning Commission make certain findings when approving demolition of Residential Buildings that require Mandatory Discretionary Review and to require replacement of sound housing with units of like affordability; and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to November 12, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to December 3, 2009

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

2. 2008.0395E (I. NISHIMURA: (415) 575-9041)

2130 Fulton Street - University of San Francisco Center for Science and Innovation - north side, between Golden Gate, Masonic, and Parker Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 114 - Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The approximately 80,000-square-foot project site is on the Main Campus of the University of San Francisco, in the existing Harney Green and Harney Plaza area. The proposed project includes removal of Harney Green and Plaza; site excavation; and construction of a three-story with a partial fourth floor, 53-foot high building with a partial basement, which would connect on all floors to the south end of the existing Harney Science Building, and a below-grade, two-level structure, which is also a component of the proposed project. The roof of this building would serve as a new plaza and pedestrian area. Together, the new structures would have approximately 60,000 square feet of classrooms, laboratories, instrumentation rooms, and building mechanical/support spaces. The project site is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would require Conditional Use Authorization for a post-secondary institutional use in an RH-2 District, and for exceeding a building height of 40 feet in an R District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to December 3, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

B. CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing

3. 2009.0341C (A. Putra: (415) 575-9079)

4207 Judah Street (4201-4211 Judah Street) - southeast corner of Judah Street and 47th Avenue; Lot 037 in Assessor’s Block 1806 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 185(e), and 303 to modify a previous Conditional Use Authorization (Motion No. 14637, Case No. 98.186C) to continue to allow hours of operation until 2:00 AM for a nonconforming bar (d.b.a. “Pittsburgh’s Pub”) in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17971

4a. 2008.277D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

168 CLIPPER STREET - north side between Church and Sanchez Streets; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 6549 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2007.12.20.1029, proposing to demolish a one-story over basement, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: No DR and Approved the demolition

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

DRA: 0118

4b. 2008.0278D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

168 CLIPPER STREET - north side between Church and Sanchez Streets; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 6549 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the replacement building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.12.20.1032, to construct a three-story over garage, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two -Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new building permit.

SPEAKERS: Tony Pantilioni – Project Architect

ACTION: No DR and Approved the new building permit

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

DRA: 0119

C. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes – Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

5. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2008.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 15, 2009.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of October 22, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

6. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Moore:

I just want to share with everybody what I believe is a great story. Parks and Rec, as we all know, like many other city institutions, is under severe financial constraints. Every year Huntington Park has a lighting program which is almost like a signature piece, particularly around the holidays when there is city wide attendance as at Grace Cathedral. All the neighbors were all upset because it was not going to happen this year. And just apparently last week, the Huntington Hotel stepped in to make it possible that the lights were on. I thought it was so great at a time where everybody really doesn’t have anything and say we will do it. And I just want to mention that.

Commissioner Antonini:

I want to point out that in Wednesday’s Chronicle, an article by John King, Getting Around Cheaper in San Francisco than in the Suburbs, they did a little survey – how much people spent per year in transportation costs and there was quite a remarkable difference between the amount being spent by city residents and those is some of the suburban areas. I guess there are a couple of reasons. The first reason was that presumably the people in the suburbs have to go further to get to anything or many things and so they are traveling a lot more to their jobs or to other things; and second of all, we have some transportation which is lacking in other places. The point of my comments is that there have been State laws passed that encourage building near public transit and I think this is more evidence of that and it would be very helpful as we try to build new in-fill housing in San Francisco with these kinds of figures and being aware of this information.

Commissioner Olague:

I have been receiving a lot of emails about the Calaveras Dam issue and extending the comment period. Is that something that we would need to address next week when the item comes up?

Commissioner Sugaya:

Last week’s packet had an Annual Report from the Board of Appeals which I found to be extremely interesting. I think we’re supposed to do one ourselves, aren’t we?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Yes, and it’s in final draft phases and it’s at the printer.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Terrific. I attended part of the ULI conference last night that is going on in San Francisco. I think there were six or seven Planning Directors from around the country on a panel and they were asked three or four questions. I found it extremely interesting to see what the answers were from the various communities. It was New York, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Minneapolis I believe were represented as well as John Rahaim from San Francisco. I learned a lot. I liked the Vancouver man’s answer to a specific question that had to do with the relationship of planning the Planning Departments and Real Estate and developers and their communities. They started off by saying that well in Vancouver and Canada we don’t have as much private property rights issues as you do in the United States and we have fewer lawyers, which was a lead in to his answer which was that even though that was the case, they did have to cooperate with developers obviously because the private sector builds most of the city anyway. I got the feeling they were able to operate from a much stronger position – maybe [with] politically and regulatory matters so that they had a little better hand to play when it came to negotiations and being cooperative and all that stuff.

Commissioner Borden:

Speaking of the Chronicle, they had an article in the paper this week that was extraordinarily pessimistic about the zoning environment and I just wanted to know what we are seeing for application filings right now because it really sounds like they were saying that no one is going to be developing anything for a very long time. We’ve done a lot of extensions – only one year extensions – on some of the entitlements too and I’m just kind of concerned if this is right. I know the current markets are really slow and I just want to know where we are.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

We have done a variety of different extensions. In Rincon Hill the code only allows a one year extension. The Commission has seen a variety of other projects that have come before you and you’ve granted – I want to say up to three years but I’m not sure that is accurate – on other projects. We are not seeing major projects come in. I can’t speak categorically because I haven’t goon through the numbers. Our numbers are down from our projections slightly. It is something we are looking and we are concerned about. The economy is bad as I think the Commission understands and the fact that you are here every Thursday until late, people are still seeking entitlements. They are using this time period to get their entitlements in place, but they are not necessarily pursuing building permits. It is a very tough economic time. I’ve been at ULI also and I’ve heard some of the discussion there. It is a very pleasant conference but it’s not a very happy conference. I’ll talk a little bit more under Director’s Report. I can’t be overly optimistic that we will see a lot of building right now. We’re holding steady but we are lower than we would like to be on our applications that are coming in.

Commissioner Moore:

I want to ask Commissioner Sugaya to share a comment about last night regarding Director Amanda Burton from New York and the Planning Commission speaking their mind rather than being restrained, constrained by whatever it might be including taking on mediocre architecture which is not at all in the spirit of that city.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Commissioner Sugaya, before you make that comment, let me just remind all of you that this is not on your calendar.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I think Commissioner Moore just said it succinctly. It was an observation by [many speakers at once – comments were unclear] it was both I think and reinforced that. They felt that Planning Directors, planners, and probably by extension, Commissioners should be forceful in terms of expressing their own opinions and be cognizant or supporting good planning policies in the face of perhaps what might be political considerations and other influences coming our direction. It was also interesting to here when they were asked what their favorite cities might be outside of their own, the answers were Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Singapore and Sydney – all outside of the United States. There was mention of Chicago and Barcelona.

Commissioner Lee:

I want to follow up with Commissioner Borden’s question. I think the article probably pinpoints exactly where we are. Last week or two weeks ago, Shorenstein with another investor, is spending a billion dollars to invest in another county but not in San Francisco. I don’t know why he is doing that. The W Hotel was bought up by a Hong Kong group at half price from the peek when it was first sold. It was like $86 million, they bought if for $43 million. A lot of people in the city don’t understand. That means our tax base for that hotel per year drops in half. If this trend continues, the value of city property will definitely drop, which will decrease our tax base. If you are a builder, why should you build a building when it is so expensive when you can buy it on the cheap since credit is so good? I’m a little disappointed that Shorenstein is building in the South Bay a billion dollars with another company but not investing or building in the city and he owns property here that he could build. … I think we see yellow lights here and I think people in the city better start looking at what’s going to happen in the future.

Commissioner Antonini:

I also saw that article and I thought it might have singled out San Francisco too much because I think there are a lot of vacancies in commercial properties throughout the Bay Area, in fact probably worse in the South Bay from what I can tell. We probably have a higher concentration of commercial properties, particularly for business here so the affects are a little more. The one golden lining, if there is any, is there have been a couple of companies who have relocated or located to San Francisco because now commercial rents are lower and they can be where they wanted to be before. I hope this will cycle as things do and demands will begin to increase because the rents are more attractive now.

Commissioner Miguel:

I was also at the ULI spin off last night down in the North Light Court that Director Rahaim put together. What I found very interesting among the seven Planning Directors – and he indicated because of their titles – some of them are in charge of all the environmental as well; some are in charge of the economics of the city and county as well. There was one who is head of the Department and the Commission at the same time. The variety among their actual positions, authority, and coverage was just amazing. We tend to think of what we know here, but it is not the same all over the country. Other than that, they rented 200 chairs and it was standing room only for 50 people probably. It was very well attended and an excellent situation.

Last week Real Estate section in the San Francisco Business Times had a article insert “Mega Project Makeovers – Ten Giant Developments That Could Recreate the Bay Area.” Six of them are in actual San Francisco. There are very brief articles on them. Hunters Point, which we heard this morning, Park Merced, Pier 70, Schledge Lock, Transbay, Treasure Island – so in keeping with our previous conversation, there is a lot in the works but it’s going to be a little while.

The other thing is as was mentioned a few weeks ago; the San Francisco Planning Commission was the recipient of the Housing Action Coalition’s Housing Hero Award. From Senator Mark Leno there is a Certificate of Recognition to the 2009 San Francisco Planning Commission: Congratulations on being honored as 2009 Housing heroes by the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition. I commend your dedication to increasing affordable housing and expanding housing opportunities for members of our community. I further commend your leadership in the effort to create a city that strives to offer housing opportunities for everyone without regard to income or social status. It is through the work of organizations such as yours that the future becomes brighter for all. Congratulations and thank you for all you do!” Senator Mark Leno. You might as well keep that in the Department’s archives or the Commission’s archives

Commissioner Sugaya:

He is writing a bill to appropriate $50 million dollars for San Francisco housing I assume.

D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

7. Director’s Announcements

Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.

E. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES; plus PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items that have not been closed at a prior public hearing. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKERS:

Ernestine Weiss

RE: Ferry Park Bridge

Aaron Goodman – Park Merced Residents Organization

RE: Demolition and Replacement of sound housing

Charlie Marsteller

RE: Structural Engineering

Art Jensen – Bay Area Water supply & Conservation Agency

RE: Item 9 on today’s calendar – certification of the final EIR for the New Irvington Tunnel Project

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2009.0262T (a. rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Zoning - Providing for a Five Feet Special Height Exception for Active Ground Floor Uses in NC-1 Designated Parcels Along Randolph and Broad Streets, from 19th Avenue to San Jose Avenue. [Board File No. 09-0319] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Avalos amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 263.20 to provide for a special height exception for ground floor uses in NC-1 designated parcels along Randolph and Broad Streets, from 19th Avenue to San Jose Avenue; amending Section 710.1, to refer to this special height exception; adopting findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. The Planning Commission will also consider the Supervisor's request to extend this legislation to provide the same five feet special height exception for all NC-1 designated parcels within the boundaries of Sargent Street to Orizaba Avenue to Lobos Street to Plymouth Avenue to Farallones Street to San Jose Avenue to Alemany Boulevard to 19th Avenue to Randolph Street to Monticello Street and back to Sargent Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Frances Hsieh – Supervisor Avalos’ aide, Dan Weaver – OMI Neighbors in Action

ACTION: Approved as modified to limit the 15-foot height to commercial use only

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and Lee

RESOLUTION: 17974

9. 2005.0162E (S. SMITH: (415) 558-6373)

NEW IRVINGTON TUNNEL PROJECT - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the New Irvington Tunnel Project (also known as “NIT”). The project would be approximately 3.5 miles long, extending west from a new Alameda West Portal in the Sunol Valley to a new Irvington Portal in the City of Fremont. The new tunnel would be located approximately parallel to the existing tunnel, with an internal diameter between 8.5 and 10.5 feet. The depth of the tunnel would range from 30 to 700 feet below ground surface. Construction would occur at four work areas: Alameda West Portal (in Sunol Valley), Sheridan Valley (along Sheridan Road), Vargas (along Vargas Road near Interstate 880), and the Irvington Portal (along Mission Boulevard in the City of Fremont).

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report.

Note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July 16, 2009. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Final EIR Certified

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Lee, and Moore

RECUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17972

10. 2009.0847B (C.TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

660-680 Alabama Street - west side between 18th and 19th Street, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 4020 - Request for Office Development Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 321 to establish the existing four story, 39,691 square feet building as legal office use in a UMU (Urban Mixed Use) District and a 68-X Height and Bulk District. The reclassification of use includes no interior or exterior alterations or additions to the existing building, and the Zoning Administrator issued a Letter of Legitimization on September 8, 2009, verifying the building as legitimate office space per Planning Code Section 179.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Gregg Miller - Representing the Project Sponsor, Sue Hestor, Fred Snyder – Project Sponsor

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17973

11a. 2008.0719D (S. CALTAGIRONE: (415) 558-6381)

2626 LARKIN STREET - east side between Chestnut and Lombard Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0069 - Mandatory Discretionary Review per Section 317 of the Planning Code of Building Permit Application No. 2008.0926.2736, proposing to demolish a three-story, two-unit residential building on a property located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 22, 2009)

NOTE: On October 22, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to take Discretionary Review and disapprove, the motion failed. The Commission continued the item to 11/5/09 by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner Sugaya was recused. The public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Sandy Walker – Project Architect, Chris Hansen – Project Sponsor

ACTION: The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Lee

NAYES: Olague and Moore

RECUSED: Sugaya

DRA: 0120

11b. 2009.0907D (S. Caltagirone: (415) 558-6381)

2626 Larkin Street - east side between Chestnut and Lombard Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0069 - Mandatory Discretionary Review per Section 317 of the Planning Code of Building Permit Application No. 2008.0926.2740, proposing to construct a four-story, two-unit residential building on a property located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 22, 2009)

NOTE: On October 22, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to take Discretionary Review and disapprove, the motion failed. The Commission continued the item to 11/5/09 by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner Sugaya was recused. The public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 11a

ACTION: The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as modified by staff

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee

NAYES: Olague and Moore

RECUSED: Sugaya

DRA: 0121

12. 2009.0667D (S. LAI: (415) 575-9087)

1826 32ND AVENUE - east side between Ortega Avenue and Noriega Avenue; Lot 043 in Assessor’s Block 2068 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2008.07.11.6477 proposing to construct a two-story horizontal rear addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

SPEAKERS: The following spoke in support of the project: Dr. Luis Vidalon – Project Sponsor, Susana Vidalon, and Tom Hernandez

ACTION: Following testimony, the Commission continued the item to 12/10/09

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

13. 2009.0761C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6382)

2460 LOMBARD STREET (AKA 2444 LOMBARD) - north side between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 014, in Assessor’s Block 0936 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 703.3, to allow a formula retail use (dba Pet Food Express) in an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKERS: In opposition: Bob Houston, Evan Goldman, Deedee Anderson, Kathleen Stewart-Anderson, Cindy Beckman, Deborah Keeve, Chris Jones, George Merijohn, Bran Goodwin, John Farrell, Kathleen Dootey – Small Business Commission, Eric Brooks – SF Green Party, Joe Alioto Veronese,Patricia Vaughey, John Eason, Charlotte Hennessy, Allison Mau, Ryan Mau, Alice Traeg, Lymette Castiglione – SOS, Alex Feldman – Marina Merchants Association, Raine Daufeldt, Barry Leonard, Lydia Lloyd, David Tornheim, Patricia Reed; In support: Michael Levy – Pet Food Express/Project Sponsor, Anthony Cheung, Nat Wong – Pet Food Express, Suzy Zuchert, Rebecca Katz – SF Dept of Animal Care & Control, Kim Durney – Grateful Gogs Rescue, Bruce Engle, Don Surath, Louise Tully – Volunteer Western States Police Canine Association, Rachelle Barrick read a letter from Fred Risenstein, Harold Hoogasian, Diana DeMarsico – Rocket Dog Rescue, [name was not clear], Nancy Stafford – SF Dog Walkers Assoc, Sam Black – Fredericksen Hardware, Kris Balloun – Golden State Greyhound Adoption, Shelah Barr – Happy Hands Massage, Doug McConnell, Marc Pearl – K9 Playtime, Candeance Nukala, Scott Turner, Alexandra Dixon, Steve Hunter – Rocket Dog rescue, Deanna Trujillo-James, Michael Belling, Matt Holmes, Allison Lindquist – EBSPCA, Martin Beresford – Marina Community Association, Susan Fry, Mike Murray – Pet Food Express, Megan Johnson – The Animal House, Kamran Sheirh, Don Epperly – Pet Food Express, Kathy Bretz, Jim Warhol, Pali Boucher – Rocket Dog Rescue, Shanuan Miller – Pet Food Express, Natalie Bayless – Sirios Puppy Training, Anne Lewis, Karen Kriegel – Bay Area Poodle Rescue, Devan Paddock – PAWS read a letter from Dan Yip, Mary Dougherty, Marcy Scheaf – Save A Bunny, Alice Engstrom – Integrated Fundraising Strategies, Max Phillips, John Warren, Eric Cribbs, Dr. Fredric Frye

ACTION: Disapproved

AYES: Olague, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and Miguel

MOTION: 17975

14. 2009.0584DD (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

3900 22ND STREET - west side between Collingwood and Castro Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor’s Block 2770 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.07.14.2590, to convert a three-family structure into a two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

NOTE: On October 15, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to November 5, 2009. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Dave Wilbur – DR Requestor and Pebody Bradford – Project Sponsor

ACTION: The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as submitted

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Olague and Sugaya

DRA: 0122

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

  1. directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 8:22 p.m.

Adopted: November 19, 2009

Last updated: 12/3/2009 2:35:53 PM