clerk: we also ask that you state and spell your last name for the record. if you feel the need to ebb gauge in a secondary discussion, take those discussions us as they become disruptive to the process, thank you. roll call -- [ roll call ] clerk: and commissioner gwennyth borden, welcome back. commissioner, the first item on calendar, item 1, case number 201.0507c, proposed for ten wants, october 14, 2010. further on your calendar, item

14, 2009.1003 for 1140 page street, know that i have received a letter from the d.r. requesters, deciding this is no longer for you for consideration. item 15, 20010.075, i have also received a letter from the d.r. requester. this item has been withdrawn also and is no longer before you for your consideration. with that, commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on calendar being continued or withdrawn. president miguel: any public comment on items proposed for continuance? if not, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> so moved.

president miguel: second? vice president olague: second. clerk: on the motion to continue item 1 to october 14, 2010 -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you commissioners, the item has been continued as it has been proposed. commissioners, you are now on your consent calendar. item 2 and 3 consequence suit the concept calendar, they are considered to be routine and would 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 requests, in the event that item would be removed from the concept and considered a separate item at this or a future hearing. first item, 2009.0875c, for 4563-4565 mission street, request for conditional use

authorization. item number 3 is case number 2009.0464c, for 10 woodside avenue, also known as 501 la down that honda boulevard. this is also a question for a conditional use authorization. commissioners, following any public comment which would automatically remove these items from the concept calendar, these matters are in your hand. president miguel: any public can comment on the items on the consent calendar? if there is -- which item? clerk: ok. commissioners because there is

public comment for item 2, that would remove this from the consent calendar. president miguel: let me explain, if you are for the item, you can let it pass through concept. you don't have to talk at all. clerk: you are for it? ok. then you don't want to -- president miguel: if you are against it then you would move it off concept. clerk: ok. president miguel: in that case we will pull it off concept calendar and hear it as the first item on the regular calendar. clerk: so before you on concept is item number 2. >> move to approve. >> second. clerk: the motion is on the floor for approval, 4563-4565 mission street. on that motion -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you commissioners, that item has been approved.

commissioners, you are now at commissioners questions and matters. president miguel: i would like to welcome commissioner borden back to the diaz, we missed you. i hope you had an enjoyable another four years as the past two years have been, and it will be our pleasure to work with you for that time. really, thank you for coming back. and the only thing i have to say is i had the pleasure of doing a tour last friday of the about to be open laguna honda facility. if anyone has the opportunity to do the tour, it takes about two

hours. it's a massive facility, to me quite unbelievable, having known some of the old facility, which is still in the process of renovation. the staff moves in, i think, starting this week or next, and the residents will move in november 7th and 8th. the way it's laid out, their programs, their process, the artwork which is quite unbelievable. all makes for an interesting facility in the manner in which elder care has progressed over the years, and their ability to create this facility so it will still be viable in the next 50 or 60 or so years. if you get a chance go see it. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i wanted to mention last week i had a few

meetings, one which is for 120 cherry which is no longer before us. also the sfp you see, a very productive meeting. and thirdly with management of daniel burn court, with concerns regarding construction impacts with cal pacific. and i encourage the public, particularly those with concerns before projects to call me at any time, it's better to be able to discuss things ahead of time and see what the concerns are and to, programs, have a dialogue than to only here before it the day of the hearing. this is very helpful when you can identify, particularly when the concerns are focused. so i encourage you to call me, any members of the public to contact me for meetings at any time. thank you. president miguel: commissioner borden?

commissioner borden: i am glad to be back. i wanted to thank the mayor and my supporters and my colleagues for supporting another four-year term. and, also, i thank all those others who were kind enough to come out to the hearing and testify. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i, on commissioner borden's recommendation, i got a call from local washington, and there was a specific question for me to comment on architecture. and i suggested as i think a more constructive way for my perspective that two or three commissioners participate with staff and if the director has time, to really discuss it soon and in the group, rather than individually. i don't think any of us have the skilled enough to redo the actual design of the project. but the comment goes with each

other in a fruitful discussion. to me, much more productive. and i think it supports the pros of the department much better. so i sucked to them to contact staff and from there we would organize a meeting. whoever wants to participate -- i volunteered -- can do so. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, commissioner moore and i participated in a meeting with supervisor campos regard to his proposed health care services legislation which i believe will be coming to the commission in the next month or see. so it was very productive, and we were able to give him some feedback on that. >> good. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i was extremely pleased to listen to land use and a discussion on america's cup. it was the first time that many city agencies and departments are coming together. i look for our own, talking to the group of commissioners

here -- participation in a fruitful dialogue. it sounds very exciting and if proper live balanced, it could be a very exciting measure. >> vice president olague? vice president olague: , i also for disclosure purposes, met with the staff of supervisor campos to discuss this city wide health legislation. it seems pretty interesting, so i look forward to hearing more about it. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: and i also met with supervisor campos and made some suggestions. clerk: ok. thank you, commission others, we can move forward to director's report and announcements and industry sow of the past week for the board of supervisors,

board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> thank you. that health care legislation is scheduled to come to you toward the end of the month. staff is working on our analysis of that and will come to you with recommendations. i believe the 28th, is that correct? that's when we are scheduled to ever that legislation before you. the only other thing i want to call to your attention is the memo in your packet regarding 1321teharo street. i think a memo does a good job of complaining. you did not take discretionary review on this project, but also asked that they not provide a garage in the back of the building. the project sponsor has complied but there is much concern in the neighborhood that they are proposing to have a driveway

access through the open space and have asked you for a hearing. i understand the concerns of the neighborhood on this issue, but this is a totally private matter between two property owners. and the commission or the staff or really any other department has no jurisdiction on this matter. so there really is nothing we could do about that situation. the project sponsor has done what you have asked them to do and are asking for a variance from the zoning administrator on the parking requirement. but the access to the open space is a private matter between the project sponsor and the owners of that space. therefore there is no jurisdiction this commission has over that issue. our recommendation is you not have a hearing a this item because the hearing would be for no real purpose at this point. i just want to put that on the record and let you know in the memo dated september 30th in your packet explains that, as well, thank you.

president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: the only question i would ask director rahaim, is there any guiding policy where that decision is made? i mean there is a code and attendant rules by which you go about parking, and i am not seeing anything. is there policy or guidance? >> regarding the parking? >> yes. >> you know, parking is required in this district, the zoning administrator said he would consider a variance from that. the commissioner is encouraging any project to provide less parking. so if this is guidance, it's bad to provide less parking than what otherwise would have been provided. in addition, the neighborhood, which i completely understand, is the access. that really is a private agreement between the open space owners and this project sponsor.

commissioner moore: you just laid out policy and i appreciate that. >> good afternoon commissioners, ann marie rogers with your weekly update on the board of supervisors as they relate to planning and land use. this week there were a number of items. they heard a zoning request for 1717 17th street. this is before the commission on september 16th, at which time you recommended approval. this rezoning would align the zoning district with the height district so that all districts have a ground floor 17 feet and all pdr much a ceiling height 15 feet. the committee also recommended approval and heard another item, area plan impact fees that would make technical corrections to

certain fees and you heard this item on july 1st. at that hearing you agreed with the staff corrections, recommended but you also added an exemption for one property so it would not have to pay impact fees associated with the educational and institutional uses on that particular property. this week at the land use hearing, supervisor sophie maxwell stated if the other cultural and educational institutions in our plans areas are required to pay fees, it's her opinion this project should be required to pay on the cultural and educational use. planning staff was at the hearing and we explained your rationale behind the commission, and the committee was not moved and they did modify that ordinance, so it would not be exempted from those impact fees. with that modification, the item

will be continued until next week and likely to be heard then. also the ordinance that was relating in part to tdr controls in general and in part to a specific property at old st. mary's church, 680 california was heard. this ordinance had been split into two-pieces, one that was exactly the way you heard it and then that's been voted on by the board of supervisors, and then a second version which has modifications, and was trailing. this week was at the land use committee. among other changes, this would add a clause to use the money to cure violations, as well as provide a zoning administrator for upkeep of the building. the hpc considered an ordinance on june 2nd and recommended approval and as we discussed on

june 20th, you also recommended approval at that time. this week the land use committee did modify that piece, to add more, on the restrictions of when the spots could be used. and in response, they changed it to a requirement to an earlier marker in the process. the requirement will be tied to a point at which the property needs to declare a statement of eligibility until later at the sale of tdr's, this change will grandfather in existing properties that have already submitted their statement of eligibility to the department. our public testimony was in support of this revised version and is to be considered by the full board next week. the committee also continued without hearing an update to the planning code and administrative code that will update our

control for inclusionary housing. planning staff is still working with the may year's housing staff to make sure the legislation is user friendly and uses consistent terminology. on tuesday, the board heard an ordinance that would create a special use district at 1800 market street. that was heard by this commission july 22nd and historic preservation on the 21st. the board passed this legislation with your recommended minor modifications. and the board reappointed again net borden to the planning commission. there were three planning appeals. the ceqa appeal would create over 4,000 square feet of office use and 54 parking spaces and

zone for office use. there was a shadow analysis on some nonproperties. this product would require a rezoning for height on a portion of the site. the commission recommended approval in conjunction with project approval and the rezoning is necessary, but that part is pending before the land use committee and will be heard at a later date. at the tuesday appeal hearing the board did uphold the e.i.r. with a 7-4 vote. before then, it was 1268 grant avenue. this commission granted the c.e.u. august 5th. the conditional use authorization was for other entertainment to install a karaoke machine on the first floor. new information was presented to the department about former

restrictions placed on the property by the board of appeals. in a notice of special restrictions in 2005. the department staff did a site visit and found that the property had illegally expanded the bar use to the second floor without benefit of permit. as such the department recommended the board uphold the appeal and return the ceu so the owner can address the violations. the board voted to overturn the appeal. and lastly, 795 forester, the project related to this was heard by the planning commission as part of a d.r. hearing on august 5th. at that time the commission did not choose to take the d.r. that would divide the lot into four parcels and construct three single-family homes on three parcels and have an existing house on the fourth parcel. it was argued that this should not occur because it did not

meet the gem plan commissions, planning staff demonstrated the lots were 25 foot wide. we also explained gem plan policies, and the board voted to uphold the project and voted against it 10-0. no introductions of planning related legislation this week i could find. there were a couple of items with the acting stoning administrator that i need to relate to you. the first had to do with that item in your packet for 1381dahara street. this week that was at the board of appeals, hands as the director explained, it's related to the open space. the boosters argued, and the open space residents argued that the encoachment would negatively impact the open space and cited a decision from 1993 that denied

a vertical condition to the building. the variance this year was granted based on plans that the parking at the front of the building, while the plans that were submitted to this week's board of appeals hearing did not have any parking. therefore, the board continued the item until november 3rd. and the other item before the board of appeals was 281 church street. this is an appeal of an over the counter building permit for retail use as a pharmacy at the property. neighbors were concerned about the pre live fer ration of the illegal prescription drug sale. the period volted 3-1 to deny the permit be because of potential negative impacts on the neighborhood. four votes are needed to overturn your action at the board of appeals, so the board continued the item until next week to allow a missing

commissioner to vote. that concludes both the report from the board of supervisors, and the board of appeals, hopefully you don't have questions about the board of appeals, because i am less familiar with that. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: could you please go over the first item on land use, where you quoted the ground floor height as 17 feet. i thought it was 15 so i am confused. >> in urban mixed use, they like the higher ground floor feet of 17, so throughout the district the u.m. districts are always paired with some item that will at least allow a 17-foot ground floor and that happened everywhere but this one parcel which did not give the correct height limits. that was an adjustment that needed to happen. you heard that item presented by corey attorney general on september 16th this year.

>> just to clarify, because the district allows, and encourages this. that's part of the reason for the 17 as opposed to the 15. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: ann marie thank you for your report. on 735 forester, did you say it was permitted to the board of supervisors. >> yes, it was a subdivision before the board of supervisors. >> because normally, the d.r. goes to permit appeals, but because it was a subdivision, it goes to the supervisors. i understand the process, thank you. clerk: the historic preservation did meet yesterday. just a few items. they approved two properties for the national register of historic places, one was 150alden street as the san

francisco juvenile court and detention home and the other was the rialto building. the other thing i want to report is that the commission approved, i guess, transferring to staff the ability to identify and delegate minor permits to alter for significant two-story buildings and all buildings in conservation district to have a few modifications to what was before them, but they gave staff the ability to grant those permits. one of the requirements is that staff, every week they list those properties on their calendar so they can see what they have approved and give them and the public the opportunity to make comment on those approvals. the last thing was they had before them the north beach library and joe dimaggio playground draft e.i.r. which will come before you later today and they had a number of

comments, and they designated one of their members to come before you today to highlight those comments. that completes my report. >> if i could, just extrapolate a little bit on that item that linda mentioned on the delegation to staff. the charter amendment allows the preservation commission to dell great certain types of approvals of their choice to staff in article 11 districts. so what staff had developed, and the commission yesterday approved was the specific types of projects, and the scope of projects that could be approved administratively by staff. president miguel: thank you. clerk: with that, commissioners, we can now go into your general public comment category for 15 minutes. at this time members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public to fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission.

with the exception of agenda items that can only be addressed at the time those items are on calendar. wrap to the calendar, each member may address you for up to three minutes, keeping in mind the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. i don't have any speaker cards for this category. president miguel: any general public comments? >> good afternoon, commissioners. sue hester, we have reached a point in san francisco's development wherein the residential areas, the traditional old residential areas of the city there are no developable lots and when they come in, they are generally difficult lots. there's a reason why they weren't developed historically. i have had three cases come to my attention in the past couple of months. they are all new construction, all