September 10, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 10, 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 1: 40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Jim Miller, Rick Crawford, Elizabeth Watty, Sharon Lai, Pilar LaValley, Brett Bollinger, Dan Sider, Aaron Starr 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.

NOTE: Items A.1, A.2a & A.2b are from the addendum for 9/10/09

A.1 2009.0479D (C. Teague: (415) 575-9081)

772 WISCONSIN STREET, west side, between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 4097, Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.07.13.6790 to add a 3rd story to the existing 2-story single-family home, extend the rear of the building, and redesign the front façade in a RH-2 (Residential, House Districts, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.

(Proposed for continuance to September 24, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

A.2a. 2006.0825CVS (E. Jackson: (415) 558-6363)

782-786 ANDOVER STREET, west side between Ellsworth Street and Benton Avenue, Lots 007-009 in Assessor's Block 5825 - Request for Conditional Use (CU) authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 242(f) and 303 to allow the new construction of six dwelling units on three consecutive lots within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the South Slope of the Bernal Heights Special Use District. The project also includes a Subdivision Application for the proposal to reconfigure the three lots 90 degrees from the existing pattern.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for continuance to September 17, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

A.2b. 2006.0825CVS (E. Jackson: (415) 558-6363)

782-786 ANDOVER STREET, west side between Ellsworth Street and Benton Avenue, Lots 007-009 in Assessor's Block 5825 - Request for Lot Width, Lot Area, and Parking Variances pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121(d), 121(e), and 242(e)(4) to allow the new construction of six dwelling units on three consecutive lots within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the South Slope of the Bernal Heights Special Use District. The Zoning Administrator will consider the Variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. The project also includes a Subdivision Application for the proposal to reconfigure the three lots 90 degrees from the existing pattern.

(Proposed for continuance to September 17, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

1. 2008.0197CEX (A. CONTRERAS: (415) 575-9044)

942 MISSION STREET - north side of Mission Street, between Fifth and Sixth Streets, Lot 15 in Assessor's Block 3704 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project proposing the demolition of an existing two-story-over-basement office and commercial building, and construction of a 152-foot-tall, 15-story building containing approximately 3,240 square feet of ground-floor retail space, 4,025 square feet of ground floor circulation and building service space, and about 72,000 square feet of hotel space including 172 hotel rooms, with pedestrian access from Mission and Jessie Streets. No off-street parking or loading is proposed. The project is located in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Use District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 9, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2a. 2008.0197CEX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

942 MISSION STREET - north side between Mint and Sixth Streets, a through-lot to Jessie Street - Review under Planning Code Section 309 of new construction of a 15-story HOTEL, approximately 79,000 gross square feet, with approximately 172 rooms, approximately 3,240 square feet of ground-floor retail space and approximately 152 feet in height, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3704, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 9, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2b. 2008.0197CEX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

942 MISSION STREET - north side between Mint and Sixth Streets, a through-lot to Jessie Street - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 216(b)(i) for a new HOTEL with approximately 172 rooms, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3704, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 9, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 22, 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. 2009.0687D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1256 Mission Street - (north side between 8^th and 9th Streets), Assessor's Block 3701 Lot 008 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for a Medical Cannabis Dispensary The proposal is to develop a Medical Cannabis Dispensary (dba San Francisco Patient Resource Center, SPARC) on the ground floor of an existing building. This project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown, General Commercial) District, and within the 150S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Application.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Antonini

MOTION: 17946

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

4. 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 would like to ask that the Department help us to sort out a memo which was distributed last Thursday. It came to President Miguel and it came from the Academy, listing in random fashion of what they are doing, complying to, trying to alleviate, etc. That is not sufficient for me to see it accounted against the very thorough presentation Scott Sanchez made to us awhile back. We had asked a number of times that we get an update. I think this memo is a perfect tool to use the Academy's random accounting of what they are doing and have the Department give us an update on what is really happening. I would like to have the Commission support me on that and put it on our  to do list and do that as quickly as possible.

Commissioner Olague:

I would like to support that too ASAP. I received the same memo from the Academy of Art and I would like the Department's perspective on it as well and I would like to not have to wait to get that hearing. So if there is a way we can prioritize that, maybe working with President Miguel, because I think this is timely and we need to know ASAP.

Commissioner Moore:

Thank you Commissioner Olague. I wanted to make a second comment that pertains to having received in a timely fashion information from the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development as it pertains to one of the issues on our agenda today. That particular memo and the summary of some of the legal as well as policy interpretation was extremely helpful for me. I just wanted to acknowledge that – not getting into detail – but just saying it's a very good way of communicating ahead of time on something of importance to us.

Commissioner Olague:

I need more information. Last week, I believe it was in the Chronicle, there was an article on MEA and the possible loss of a Civil Service position. I know there was a memo that went around that Local 21 testified to this Commission last year around the budget period and I would like to understand a little bit more. Today we did receive another letter from Local 21. I don't know if it would be something for a public hearing or not, but I was kind of taken off guard by it. I need more information I think. I want to understand. I don't know whether that would be in a public hearing; whether it would be &

Director Rahaim:

I would be happy to inform the Commission about what is happening there. I would suggest it may not be the subject of a public hearing, but I'm happy to write a memo about it.

Commissioner Olague:

Okay. I think it's pretty important. I've been getting emails and phone calls and I'm not sure how to respond. And maybe next time during the budget period I'm going to ask for probably more time and more hearings before voting on the budget.

Prop D is something that is coming up in the mid-Market signages and I would like the Department to give us some analysis of that. [Ms. Rodgers is usually here to do that.]

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioners as part of the City's process, the Department analyzed the affects of the proposed Charter amendments and we can put that analysis in your packets and if there is more information required, we will give it to you. Obviously, we didn't take a position on it because that would be inappropriate but we did an analysis that [blended] into the Charter Committee (I don't know what it's called) that does the summary.

Commissioner Antonini:

I also would like to comment on and thank Director Rahaim, Mr. Yarne, Local 21, all the people who are engaged in this process to try to see if we can make our environmental process more efficient. We all gain. Particularly in planning issues, efficiency is very important because it sends a message to developers that San Francisco has a process as efficient as other locations when they are choosing places to locate. Certainly less process means less cost as long as we are protected; that the analysis is a through one; and thirdly that these types of things will generate revenue. I guess the question that always comes up in these issues and one that we all deal with in businesses is how much of it should be done by staff who are full time employees; how much should be – use part time; how much of it should be done by outside firms? And this is something that I hope that all parties can work together on it and come up with solutions that protect staff positions where possible and wherever we can employ our staff to do the job in an efficient manner makes sense. That is just the short version of an overview of what I see coming up. But I glad that it's being looked at.

My other comment just briefly: I here there is a plan to close Market Street from 6^th Street down & Am I wrong on that Director?

Director Rahaim:

A plan to close it to normal traffic& There is a concept being proposed to close it to normal traffic but leave it open to buses and & [A trial actually & ]

Commissioner Antonini:

I guess I mis-spoke. I guess it is to auto traffic. My only comment is one who uses that route, I don't see many autos on that section anyway but I think maybe an intermediary step might be to close off right turns and not allow people just to go directly from Van Ness to the Ferry Building knowing that they can't get off of there. I'm just wondering what the affects will be on the other streets when you move the traffic off of there, but I guess we'll find out when we have this closure. I understand it's a trial closure, is that correct?

Director Rahaim:

Yes, a trial for six weeks. The idea is to test it out.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Yes. I had one item, but as long as some other subjects have come up – the whole issue with MEA and environmental review – We're in the business of consulting with firms that do environmental reports and I think the present system with a lot of MEA oversight is one that seems to work, but I understand that there's concerns over delays and whatnot. But turning environmental review over to a consultant hired by the developer is in my opinion is exactly the wrong thing to do. There would have to continue to be a lot of MEA oversight. The simplest solution is, in my opinion and which other cities have done but this city seems to have some huge barrier in the way, is to have the city hire the consultant and have the developer pay for it. I just can't understand why that system, simple as it sounds, can't be implemented here in San Francisco.

Market Street – I've never run into Mr. Antonini on Market but I use it mainly on the weekends when I transport my better half around downtown San Francisco. Maybe because it's the weekend, this whole idea that it is notoriously congested is beyond me. Maybe on the week days it's worse, but that's just an observation.

Lastly, what I was really going to talk about was I did attend last night the first Japantown community meeting that took place after the Commission voted to not endorse but to acknowledge all the work that went into the Japantown Better Neighborhoods Plan over the last several years. At that meeting last night I think there was a re-cap of the events that took place over the years. Generally I think people felt good about at least the attempt at making an open process work as much as possible. There was a panel of three people who gave their opinions. And those people were involved in the very beginning of the planning process and then made some observations about how they felt the process went slightly array toward the end. I think though that basically people are now ready to begin working on it again. Especially in light of I believe Director Rahaim has included a half time request to the Board of Supervisors to fund a position to aid in the process over the next year of so. If the Board agrees, I think the neighborhood is quite willing to move ahead as fast as possible. I also saw a memorandum that I hadn't seen before from David Alumbaugh to staff outlining some various kinds of activities and steps that could take place during this planning process – the next iteration of the planning process. I think the neighborhood is going to take a serious look at that and perhaps try to have a meeting with Director Rahaim and staff over 1) exactly how this position is going to work; and 2) the kind of interaction that they would like to have take place between the neighborhood and community and the Planning Department. It was an encouraging meeting.

Commissioner Olague:

Getting back to my earlier comments on the MEA issue, I agree with what Commissioner Sugaya said completely and I guess that's what alarmed me most when I read the article in the Examiner was the idea of the developer hiring the consultant directly to review their projects. It just seemed a little bit like &

Director Rahaim:

If I could just clarify because there is a lot of confusion about this – the proposal is not for the developer to hire. The proposal if for the developer to pay for & - the idea is that the Department would hire the consultant and manage the contract for this particular body of work that we're talking about. But I will also say that this has become a personnel issue and a larger issue that I think is not necessarily appropriate to discuss at this table but I'm happy to talk to the commissioners about it.

Commissioner Olague:

The process question; I agree with the process issue that Commissioner Sugaya addressed and I think somebody mentioned that it was kind of like the fox guarding the hen house and I agree with that point. But yeah you're right, the contracting out issue is something that is more personnel and should probably be discussed through memo or elsewhere.

Commissioner Lee:

I wasn't going to talk about the MEA issue, but from a commission perspective I think I'd like Director Rahaim to make sure that the Human Resources Department is on board. As a Commission we cannot interfere with day-to-day activities. What the Director wants to do regarding contracting out, depending on the approval process and I think it's a little premature to discuss it. I don't know if everything in the newspaper article is correct or not, but I did receive a letter from Local 21 earlier this week and they raised a couple of issues of it, but I think it would be better if we had something in writing as far as the Director can go because it is some personnel matters. It's also union negotiations with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Local 21. There are a lot of issues that play into this MEA. I would caution the Commission and let the Department Head decide what is sent to us. I want to make sure we [don't] step into personnel issues where [with] Local 21 and City and MOU issues.

Commissioner Moore:

I want to ask Director Rahaim does the Department keep a running calendar of what meetings are happening and where? I was unaware of the Japantown meeting. I am also curious when the next Embarcadero meeting is. Is it possible we get copied on that? We might, on an individual basis, decide to attend these meetings and for me personally it would be very helpful not to catch these dates on the run, but really know what your scheduled meetings are. These are primarily neighborhood meetings.

Director Rahaim:

There are two answers. Some of the meeting that were being talked about were neighborhood community meetings that we were attending, but others are in fact meetings that we are sponsoring. Those appear on our website, but they are under the project title and it's hard to find. We are trying to organize a calendar so we can show all the meetings that we are sponsoring in one place. We are not quite there yet, but that is one of the things we are trying to work on.

Commissioner Moore:

I would strongly encourage that that happen soon. There are lots of important things which we mostly only hear about last minute and I would personally like to schedule them into my own calendar as best [fast] as I can. It would be helpful to get that underway as quick as possible.

Commissioner Miguel:

I have to agree with that. I had a conflict so did not get to the Japantown meeting last night, although I did get a couple of email notifications regarding it.

During the last week I met with people regarding the medical cannabis dispensary that we just went through; an item regarding 44^th Avenue; one on Washington Street; one on Corbett. Just before I came to the meeting, I took a look at the installation that is going on at 16^th and 8^th Streets. It's sort of in the middle of [ ] café. They are I would say about three quarters finished with it. It should be open by the end of the week. It's taking the stub end of a non-street in between two very active breakfast lunch places; a half block from the California College of Arts, not the Academy, and it looks like its going to be a nice little mini instillation. It's quite small, but it's going to work. It is not going to infringe on traffic or anything else. They seem to be doing a pretty good job with next to no expense. I know its costing money, but they are really doing a great job with it.

I certainly agree with Commissioner Moore regarding the Academy of Art. To me that was part of their normal PR output and I did not consider it anything that gave me information as to the information that we really requested from them whatsoever.

I also appreciated the material from the Mayor's Office of Economic Development that came. I thought that was extremely well done. And I appreciate Director Rahaim's comments on MEA because there is a great deal of partial information coming from a number of sources and nothing that ties the whole thing together. It is hard to make sense because you don't know when you have the full picture when you get information in that manner. I realize that is a union negotiation issue. It's a personnel matter and we are not necessarily going to have a full hearing on it, but I think a little more information would be helpful.

Commissioner Antonini:

In that same sense I just wanted to report that I have met a few weeks ago with project sponsors – I think its 875 Corbett, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the Corbett case that is coming up nest week. Also with the project sponsor for 750 2^nd Street and I had a phone conversation that I initiated with project sponsor for 673-675 44^th Avenue.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

5. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Good afternoon again. Just a couple or announcements on my activities: Last night I made a few comments at a meeting that SPUR had. They're interested in kind of just keeping up to date on what the Department activities are. I forgot to mention two weeks ago I actually did a tour with the Miraloma Park Neighborhood Association. While I'm on that topic it would be for the public's benefit and Commission's benefit, I do very much enjoy those so I would welcome any invitation to meet with the neighborhood group and attend and get a tour of their neighborhood from their perspective which I find extremely useful in getting to know the city better and getting to know the particular issues that are facing those neighborhoods.

I wanted to also mention the Pavement to Parks Program that President Miguel raised. Staff has been very heavily engaged in those; particularly Andres Power on the staff has been kind of the Project Manager for those. They are using found materials for the most part that DPW has on site – former sewer pipes and things to plant. And actually it was a staff volunteer effort that went out and planted many of the plants and that was at both the 16^th and 8^th Street location and at Potrero as well as the San Jose and Guerrero location. Both of those are set to open I think this weekend.

Finally, I just want to let you know that I will be taking some time off in early October. I will miss the first two meetings of the month. I will be out from the 1^st to the 13^{th –} partially on a speaking trip to Montréal and then for some vacation in New England during the fall season. So I will miss the first two meetings of October.

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

nONE

BOARD OF APPEALS:

• a re-hearing of 430 Main Street and 429 Beale Street. The Board of Appeals upheld your decision but the Project Sponsor requested a re-hearing at the Board. On Tuesday an appeal of the CEQA document was filed at the Board of Supervisors and this item was continued to September 30 to determine how the CEQA appeal affects the re-hearing process and the Board is seeking the City Attorney's advice on that.
• 456 Urbano Drive: The Planning Commission heard this on December 20 in a DR hearing. You took staff's advice and reduced the size of the building. An appeal was filed by a neighbor regarding shadows. The Board of Appeals upheld your decision and the project moved along except the project did not follow the approved permits. There was a  Stop Work Order. They did not stop work. We had the police out there. Ultimately, we found the grade had been changed. The measurement which looks similar was not. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Building Inspection Department who brought this to our attention recognizing that it was too high and not what the Planning Commission approved. We believe it was 1.8 feet higher than what was approved. The Board of Appeals agreed with us. A new permit must be filed. We will review that permit and although we don't have that permit before us yet, we don't think that is in compliance with the neighborhood and in any case we would have to bring it back to you even if we thought it was appropriate because you took DR on it. I do believe it is going to be very difficult to bring this project back down to the original height because it's not like removing a parapet. Instead of building the floors at an eight foot floor to ceiling, they built at approximately 10 feet. This is not a simple thing to resolve.

Commissioner Antonini:

I just wanted to comment and thank Mr. Badiner and DBI for working on making sure that where there are violations or work done in excess of permits – I think it does happen fairly frequently and I'm glad that we are trying to find where can where this is happening.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Thank you. I should have said that the Board of Appeals complemented the Department, Enforcement and Neighborhood Planning staff Kate Conner and Elizabeth Watty for their diligent work on this. It is both their efforts that really brought this to fruition.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

NONE

7. 2005.1068CKSVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1340 & 1390 MISSION STREET - Public Art Program, pursuant to Planning Code Section 149 - northeast corner at Tenth Street, a through-lot tot Jessie Street, and southwest corner of Jessie Street at Ninth Street, Lots 013, 026, 027, 051, 052, 053 and 054 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown Commercial, General) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: informational – no action

E. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

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. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKERS:

Jim Meko

Re: Proposed closure of market Street

Michael Nulty

Re: Proposed closure of Market Street

Patricia Vaughey

Re: Proposed Subway at 3215 Pierce St. (formula retail) in the neighborhood

Joseph Anthony Contreares

Re: [comments were not clear]

Sister Elaine Jones

Re: Proposed closure of Market Street

1. REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2009.0408C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

2550 SLOAT BOULEVARD - north side at the northeast corner of 44^th Avenue; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 2512 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 711.83, 790.80, to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 9 new panel antennas screened inside faux chimneys located on the existing building rooftop and measuring approximately 38'-6 above grade, with 6 equipment cabinets located on the roof of the garage, as part of AT&T's wireless telecommunications network within a NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) Zoning District and 100-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Paul Albrin – representing the Project Sponsor, Dawn Stueckle, Lainee McDuffie, Chuck Wong

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17947

9. 2009.0459C: (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

90 Turk Street - (North side between Taylor and Eddy Streets), Assessor's Block 0340 Lot 012 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 249(d) to relocate an existing Off-Sale Liquor Establishment (Liquor Store) at 67 Turk Street (dba Grand Liquor) to 90 Turk Street (dba Tip-Top Market). Planning Code Section 249(d) requires Conditional Use authorization for such a transfer within the North of Market Residential Special Use District. This project lies within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District and within the 80-120T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKERS: Terence Hollinan – representing the Project Sponsor, Officer Mike Torres, Captain Gary Jamenez, Frank Ratesi – project sponsor, Jack Rantisi – project sponsor, Stefano Cassolato, David Daniel Cruz, Illya Fee, Ward Loggins, Steve Woo, Denise Roe, Johnny Martin, Mr. Lee, Arthur Bosse, Michael Nulty, David Villa-Lobas, John Nulty, Paul Lentz, Joseph Jackson, Wellington Davidson, Rick Keinhenz, Alan Craigie, Catalina Dean, Richard Price, Joseph Orso, K. G. Dick, Sister Elaine Jones, Terrie Frye, Otto Duff, Maria (with an interpreter), Barbara Lopez, Hani Kaileh, Elian Hernandez, Edward Evans, Lisa Ang, Dina Hilliard, Mea Curry, Mark Ellinger, Marsha Garland, Jorge Castillo, Clint LaDine, Chaplain Earl Rodgers, Chris Schulman, Abraham Weldesglasie, David Nash, Mel Beetle, Jerry Taylor, SRO Collaborative, Mike Williams, Elvin Podia, Rami Hatur, Alinse Moore, Gilman

ACTION: Disapproved

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

NAYES: Antonini

MOTION: 17948

10. 2007.0007AEKX (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

750 2^nd STREET - west side between Townsend and King Streets; Lot 002A in Assessor's Block 3794 - Request for Large Project Authorization under Planning Code Section 329 for Large Project Authorization with exceptions for (1) rear yard; (2) off-street parking spaces; and (3) dwelling unit exposure requirements for seven units not fronting onto a public right-of-way or a qualifying rear yard. The project is for the demolition of a one-story with mezzanine building and construction of an eight-story with mezzanine, approximately 40,000 gross square feet and a 95-foot tall building with up to 14 dwelling units, approximately 500 square feet of ground floor retail space, and 14 off-street parking spaces. The subject property is in the MUO (Mixed-Use Office) Zoning District with a 105-F Height and Bulk Designation. The subject property is also a non-contributing resource to the South End Historic District designated pursuant to Article 10 of the Planning Code.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 23, 2009)

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Andy Bush – Project Sponsor, Bob Baum – Project Architect

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17949

11. 2007.0689E (B. BOLLINGER: (415) 575-9024)

900 FOLSOM STREET - Assessor's Block 3732 Lots 009, 018, 048 and 147 - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The project site is a 56,000-square-foot parcel located at the corner of Folsom and Fifth Streets in the South of Market neighborhood. The proposed project would demolish the existing surface parking lot and replace it with a new 85-foot­-high building with 271 residential units, ground-level retail uses, and 229 parking spaces. The project site is within a Mixed Use - Residential (MUR) District, an 85-X and 45-X Height and Bulk District. Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until 5 p.m. on September 15, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 23, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Jim Meko

ACTION: public hearing on DEIR – no action

12. 2007.0690E (B. BOLLINGER: (415) 575-9024)

260 FIFTH STREET - Assessor's Block 3732 Lots 150 and 008 - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The project site is a 28,641-square-foot parcel located on the block bounded by Fifth, Sixth, Howard and Folsom Streets in the South of Market neighborhood. The proposed project would demolish the existing warehouse building and parking lot and replace it with a new 85-foot-high building with 179 residential units, ground-level retail uses, and 133 parking spaces. The project site is within a Mixed Use - Residential (MUR) District and an 85-X Height and Bulk District. Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until 5 p.m. on September 15, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

SPEAKERS: Jim Meko

ACTION: public hearing on DEIR – no action

13. (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

 NC@20: Looking Back on 20 Years of Neighborhood Commercial Zoning - Review and comment on this report, which responds to Planning Code requirements for periodic status reports on the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Controls. NC@20 looks back at the previous two decades and examines the nature of the NC zoning controls, discusses outstanding issues, and recommends approaches to address those issues. In broad terms, the purpose of the report is to provide a body of information which will help frame the continued evolution of NC zoning controls. NC@20 is available in PDF format on the Planning Department's web site (www.sfplanning.org) under the  New Releases heading. Printed copies of NC@20 are available for $6 (which covers reproduction costs) at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational, review and comment on report – no action

14. 2009.0327D (S. LAI: (415) 575-9087)

905-907 DIAMOND STREET - northwest corner of Diamond and Jersey Streets; Lot 026 of Assessor's Block 6539 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for Dwelling Unit Merger Request, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 317, requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2009.04.27.7146, proposing to merge four dwelling units to two dwelling units. The property is located within a RH-2 (Residential, Two Units) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications and Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 3, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul – representing the Project Sponsor, Peter Benout – Project Architect, Helen Surh – Project Sponsor, Pat Buscovitch

Motion: to not take Discretionary Review (DR) and approve as proposed

AYES: Antonini and Lee

NAYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Took DR and approved a 4 to 3 dwelling unit merger

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and Lee

DRA#: 0101

15a. 2007.0921DD (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44^th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.09.20.3151 (demolition); proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-family dwelling, subdivide the lot and construct two, four-story, two-family buildings 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 Project

SPEAKERS: Gary Gee – Project Architect, Tom Davick – DR requestor, Vincent Marsh – representing the DR requestor, Chris Gussis, Patrick Tiomore, Donna Yee, Danielle Pittman, Wayne Chee, Ms. Wagner, Rose Hillson, Cheryl Shultz

ACTION: following testimony, continued to 9/17/09 – public hearing remains open

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

15b. 2007.0921DD (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44^th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2007.09.20.3151; proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-unit building 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 Project

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 15a

ACTION: following testimony, continued to 9/17/09 – public hearing remains open

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

15c. 2008.1155D & 2008.1156D (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44^th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.09.20.3152 and 2007.09.20.3157 (new construction); proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-family dwelling, subdivide the lot and construct two, four-story, two-family buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify Project

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 15a

ACTION: following testimony, continued to 9/17/09 – public hearing remains open

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

15d. 2008.1213D (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44^th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.09.20.3152 and 2007.09.20.3157; proposing to construct two new, four-story, two-unit buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify Project

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 15a

ACTION: following testimony, continued to 9/17/09 – public hearing remains open

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

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: 9:23 p.m.

Adopted: October 1, 2009