antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. it sounds like in reading this report, although it is gone, there has been a lot left discussions about the measurements, but i think it was ultimately decided that it was at least 1 foot 9 inches beyond what was approved. >> yes. commissioner antonini: and there is some question as to what that actually was because there has been so much dirt moved on to the front yard, it is hard to survey, although from the street i guess there is a way to do it. >> right, and the front stairs have also been modified. at all the various reference points have been thrown out as reliable, which is why we resulted to using the finished first floor at the front of the house. at the front of the house, right here, it provides an actual static reference point. these are their plans they provided, before and after. commissioner antonini: staff does this all the time, and i have to agree with your assessment. the other thing i am reading, there is also a setback problem. apparently they are 3 feet short of

commissioner antonini: that could be made into a half baths. president olague: is that a motion? commissioner antonini: let me move it, not take the art and approved. entrances to the first floor -- take d.r., and eliminate entrances to the exterior from the first floor, other than the garage door or the cars, man, and turn the bathroom there into a half bath. since nobody is living down there, presumably, there should be no need for to be a full bath and we could approve it with those changes. president olague: is there a second? commissioner moore: commissioner antonini, if i could carry that thought, ascii to look at the drawing, behind the front, behind the shingle portion of the facade, bair is a suggested additional balcony -- there is a suggested additional balcony. having a full tilt facade and potentially derailing of a balcony at rising behind it i think will impact this. it looks difficult in the context of the rest of the design, and i don't think that question is fully resolved. there is something that is not quite work. in order to protect the roof, you have to basically use a solid elem

antonini? commissioner antonini: move to close. commissioner sugaya: second. [roll call vote] >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously. item four, draft minute meetings, 2010. the draft minutes of this special meeting of october 21, 2010, there was a typo on the calendar and draft minute meetings. these should have all been sent by email last week. vice president olague: yes. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. commissioners? commissioner moore: i read the draft minutes by email and move to approve, but i am not sure that everybody got them. vice president olague: apparently so. commissioner antonini: second. >> on that motion, commissioners -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that function passes a five-one. which places us on item 5, consideration of adoption planning commission hearing schedule for 2011. vice president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would like to ask that the commissioners consider the following. we have a good year with solid blocks of 8 to 10 meetings and relatively few f

antonini? commissioner antonini: i am interested in hearing it tonight for the following reasons. we went for long times in the last year with five commissioners, and then we went even logger with six commissioners that were actually part of the commission. that is sort of what happens from week to week. there are times when we did not have a full commission, and more often than not somebody is not here. as for is the issue of the accuracy, as was pointed out, that would be part of the discussion of the discretionary review and would be up to the commission to decide if there are inaccuracies in the plan. i think mr. smith answered the noticing thing, so i am fine with hearing it tonight. commissioner sugaya: i just have a question for the d.r. request or. without getting into the details, what is it that we would receive from the d.r. requestors if we were to continue the item? >> what would you receive from us? commissioner sugaya: other than if we go ahead with the hearing tonight, there will be public testimony and, obviously, you will tell us the plans are inaccurate and the d

commissioner antonini: so we already have the controls on van ness avenue. >> that is correct. commissioner antonini: and we're extending it to tarsz off the street -- to the areas off the street, which are the tenderloin and some others and wherever else the other parts of the rc-3 and 4 areas are that you put in. okay. it sounds like that probably is just redefining something that's largely in place anyway. because i think a lot of those areas are more similar to the downtown area and you add to at least along van ness and if it's already in place, it isn't going to make any difference. you already have to go through that process on van ness, so that's really not going to change anything. okay. thank you. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: pardon my ignorance, but we're going to take the rc-3 and 4 and then use wise we're going to refer within those districts to the n.c.t. uses. >> to the nc-3 -- it's actually the same whether you are looking at ncd-3 or the nct-3. the uses are permitted and both are the same. we have a little chart of some of the differences. there is not

antonini? commissioner antonini: aye. [motion passes passed unanimous. item 15 was withdrawn and that puts us on number 16, for 518 pennsylvania avenue, request for discretionary review. >> kelly ander, department staff, again, in lieu of julian benalis who is out this week, i will present this case as an abbreviated did. d.r. case. this proposal is to add a two-story addition to an existing single family home. the proposed addition will add 15 feast depth in the rear to the first and second floors. the first floor of the addition will be set back five feet from the southern property line and the second and third floors will be set back five feet from both side property lines. additionally, the new third floor will be set back 15 feet from the front building wall of the existing home to preserve the two-story character of the west side of pennsylvania avenue in this block. it is important to note that the uniqueness of this property and the slope at the rear of the site which you can see in some of the material in your packet. i will also let you know th

antonini? commissioner antonini: i realized this was only an initiation and that answers some of my concerns and it appears as if this is going to be sold will be able to use the funds for other redevelopment projects because arkt tech churlly while the towers serve a very good purpose, architecturally they're probably not our best product. i was hoping that we wouldn't see the same. this sounds like it may be commercial. it may be residential. i'm not really sure. but it sounds like the process is going to allow us to and we're only initiating the zoning change. i would hope that as we move forward, we will have more information before we actually approve the zoning change as to some ideas about what might be built there. it may be just a sale. there may not be a project yet. i don't really know. i'd like to know a little bit when we goat that point. president miguel: commissioner moore? commisioner moore: this is one of those types of lots where one would require guidelines which particularly address turning off a corner and turning a way to transition into the next zoning. that is the one thi

antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. for many years we have gone over the fights over the number of floors, and my contention is the envelope and the height of the envelope and its effect on the adjacent properties is what matters. if the project sponsor prefers to put in floor. for floors rather than at 3, it is their prerogative as long as it is done it in a way that is structurally sound and does not increase the impact. i like to ask some questions. the project sponsor has said that the measurement of the out facade to the front most part of the building is 26.2. i don't know if you have the measurements to substantiate that or not. >> that is the dimension on the drawing. commissioner antonini: okay. and as you go further back, the setback, and then it is stepped up, and they're coming up with 36 feet, which is lowered from the original 40 feet, and 4 feet below what is permitted. it also presented other numbers. i don't expect you to substantiate these, but they say using the same measures of the adjacent propertie

antonini? commissioner antonini: just one brief question regarding the housing issue and i may need clarification going forward. student housing could be defined as dormitories, i think, because they are owned by the school, would be reverbed for those who are stunts. if someone was no longer a student, they would no longer be able to be the roadway sensors dent there. >> it's attached to the unit as opposed to who is in the unit. >> even if it's owned by a school for the purposes of student housing. >> some of their building are just apartment buildings? >> i guess it depends on the definition, not traditional dormitories. that's where the distinction is. ok, got it. vice president olague: , that's confusing. president miguel: let's take a 15 had been minute break. clerk: we have one more item -- no, item number 9 has been withdrawn. president miguel: yeah, 9 has been withdrawn, we have 10 and 11. let's take 15 minutes and try not to take more than that. thee hope for their legislation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, thanks for your time and consideration on this we agree with the staff's rec

antonini? commissioner antonini: i am kind of in favor of what commissioner moore was alluding to, one of the conditions being to move it to another site. is that part of the motion? commissioner moore: this is kind of tripping me. i was hearing commissioner miguel saying the rational thing. this has been around since october, why haven't we heard about this before. i am trying to be sensitive to the issues. they made a convincing presentation. commissioner borden: i mean, i would just add, where would you put -- the problem is, where would you put the shack? i mean, it is a wonderful idea to move it, but it is not like it is a cultural resource everybody was visiting. commissioner moore: why don't we ask commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i am not saying anything more. commissioner antonini: i will continue. in reading the historical report, which was interesting, a lot of these shacks were moved to other places in the past. i think there may not be that many of them left, and it would be up to the project sponsor to find the site. i am not sure that you want to put that into the motion. commiss

antonini? commissioner antonini: i just wanted to mention that i have to read clues myself from the next item. >> commissioners you are now on the items 12 a and b, case number 2,009.0175, and 214-2 16 17th avenue. commissioner antonini: i need to rid clues myself from this item. the product sponsor is a dental patient of mine and i have received in excess of five federal dollars for dental services. even though some of it came from a third-party carrier, the rule is regardless of the source that is deemed a conflict. so i will be back after this. commissioner moore: we have to first move to reduce them. commissioner borden: -- to rec use him. >> of the motion to recuse commissioner antonini -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the case before it is for conditional use authorization for development on a lot > 4999 square feet. it the subject property is located at the corner of california street and 17th at avenue in the nc-1 zoning district. it contains an l-shaped building on california street and commercial building. the proposal includes demolishing

antonini? commissioner antonini: i would speak against the motion. we're not sure that the plans are an accurate. that would be presented during the hearing to determine that, which we could do tonight. also, this whole concept that by mediation you'll come up with this solution, i have seen projects we have continued and continued, hoping they would not need d.r., and more often than not ultimately you end up having the hearing anyway. commissioner sugaya: there is a motion and second to continue to february 3. [roll-call vote] >> that motion passes for-2, commissioners. vice president olague: it is continued until february 3. commissioner sugaya: i would hope, just for the d.r. requestors' sake, i am going to keep these drawings. vice president olague: the staff has their images, and you mentioned something about talking to their architect. so maybe you could work with the project sponsor to have accurate hearings. >> i think if you talk to staff, they will direct you to what you need to do. >> commissioners, it will you be returning your packets f

antonini? commissioner antonini: my only concern with removing the existing smoking entrance, i guess you would call it, that faces the street, and not replacing it with something else, may to some degree exacerbate the problem and people are going to smoke and what they'll do is smoke out on market or wherever they have to go, so that might make it worse. i assume that we certainly could come back with it at a future time with the c.u. to establish this smoking area within, which i guess would add another hearing. i think i am in support of the conditions that the neighborhood wants in terms of mitigating the complaints and that is part of this motion. and i'll be supportive of what's in there, but i think we could be more efficient by including the smoking lounge, too. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i fully support the statements commissioners miguel and olague made and having done the homework for us and what i would suggest to mr. paul is if trigger is starting to come forward with another application to very carefully review that also with the exits and including

. >> antonini commissioner antonini: i entirely understand. you're going to run a good operation but i am cognizant of -- of you know, bridge and tunnel problems and other things that were alluded to. that being said, i completely understand the police position and not individualized for your establishment but rather the staggering allows them to respond. if everybody out at the same time and in addition to those that may wander around the street, it is impossible to police it. this way can -- they can direct their attention to people coming out and being victims rather than perpetrators. hopefully that's not the case but others who do things. i think they can relegate their forces a little more which is staggering. i'm supportive, sounds like a plan. >> i am also supportive of the project. i wish you the best of luck. if there's a hand-some looking design. and upscale and revidal y50eu6bs revitalizes the area and we hope the security is at the utmost and for the safety of folks and the reputation of san francisco to make sure we don't have an

antonini? commissioner antonini: i generally would be supportive on staff recommendations on these items, the first of which the garage with the 10 feet sounds reasonable. and there's no problem there. on the snout house, yeah, i actually did send an e-mail to -- about a relative in the east bay. everyone interested in garage. very trusting because they have nothing of advantage in their garage. at my point, you need a little flex nlt on this because what an actual snout house is a matter of interpretation and i think by allowing this to be looked at by us or by staff in individual instances make sense but we actually want to discourage that from being a standard but certainly there may be those examples that are pointed out and others that might be an appropriate solution because i for one don't want to make it more difficult for people to add appropriate out house. and the other point i have, if you look at section 39-l-25, 24, 25 and it deals with this north of market s.u.d. and i think it's a little too sperving. what it's doing is relieving the minimum parking requirements. i think that's fine

antonini? commissioner antonini: i think what i am hearing from the public is that certainty is number one. let's set the calendar as far as possible and try to stick with what we have. with that in mind, i am also hearing that it is better if something is taken off that added at the last second. with that in mind, from what i have heard about our upcoming calendar, having been here till midnight last week, i like to propose the following calendar for consideration. it that we at this time had march 31 to the calendar, anticipating all of the big projects coming up, of which there are many from what i understand. that we go ahead that it, -- that we go ahead, in deference to commissioner moore, and we take off the three weeks and wrote, in september, and we at september 29 to the cabinet to try to make up for that day, and the last part would be that we do calendar thursday november 10. that is my motion. commissioner fung: that was adding november 10? commissioner antonini: yes. commission fung: is this a commission matter? vice president olague: it is under commission comments and questio

so in response to commissioner antonini's question, i hope that is readable. commissioner antonini: to follow up, even though i think we have talked about impact and we do not feel the impact is significant enough to take any kind of dr, i think we also have to be responsible to what we have approved. we need it to be an improvement and some inappropriate for the size of the lot, appropriate for the neighborhood. -- and appropriate for the size of the lot, appropriate for the neighborhood. that is not something we can tell, looking at these plans. i would like to see the plants in the future that we can really tell what is happening. commissioner sugaya: you would say adding -- commissioner moore: you would say adding color, adding materials, things like that. commissioner antonini: it before and after in the drawings, and a little more understanding of what the layout of the house means. that would be helpful. >> commissioners, you have a motion and the second to not dr and to take the commission as approved. [roll is called] that motion passes unanimously. you are on your last re

but i don't know that the incremental suggested that commissioner antonini put forward its us to that place. commissioner antonini: maybe we should ask somebody. mr. butler, if you want to speak for the d.r. requestors, i am not sure they've acquiesced to that, but if so, that is fine. a>> the 31 feet, is that measurd from the rear yard or the front yard? it is very important. commissioner borden: just tell me what your preference is. just tell me what your thinking is. >> if this building measured 31 feet at the rear of the property, 9 foot ceilings, but 10 foot floor to floor -- commissioner borden: just talk about the height. >> the light will start at the ground and it goes through the roof, ok? so we took the 14 feet 3 inches of his light well and we put it next to the five-foot side yard setback on the pop out. that is what the code requires. when you put a matching white well by shifting it back to match the pop out, that is what we want. but measured at the street, our proposal is 25 feet. we could go to 27 feet, that would be fine. at the back of the lot, are envelope is measured by the planning code at

commissioner antonini: i would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion for approval of items four and five, on your calendar, commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. thank you, commissioners. items four and five have been approved. commissioners, going back to item 3 on your calendar, again, this is case 2010.0118c for market street. >> commissioners, are you ready to hit this item? the item before you is case 2010. 1018c. the project is located in the mtc 3 moderate scale transit district. you may recall this project. it came before you last year. the item was -- the project was ultimately approved. there was an appeal of the mitigated negative declaration, and both the ceqa case and conditional use case were appealed to the board of supervisors where it was upheld. what is before you today is a request by the project sponsor to amend two of the conditions of approval from the previous project. there is no physical modification proposed to the exterior of the building. the only physical alteration is the elimination of two subterranean parking garages that would have housed parking spaces fo

commissioner antonini: i'm sorry, you were going to move it? move to continue? i'm in agreement with that. if there's no other comments -- commissioner olague: people can vote against it if they want to -- commissioner antonini: i'm fine with that. why don't you make a motion, then? >> commissioners, excuse me, the city attorney has reminded me that the project sponsor needs to have an opportunity to speak to the continuance request. commissioner miguel: i do not think we can do it at this time. i think we have to wait for the call of the item, since the project sponsor particularly is not here. commissioner olague: ok, that is fine. move to continue items one, 2a, 2b, 3b4a, 4b, 4c, 4d to the dates noted. >> second, but i think that 4a through d need no action. also the park merced case. on that motion to continue as proposed, -- [will call -- [roll call] so would, commissioners. we are now under commissioners questions and matters. if you could direct the commission secretary to ed that item to the february calendar -- to add the item to appear on the february calendar. you are now on the item 5, election of officers. commissioner moore: i would like to make a motion to appoint a commissioner olague as pres

antonini: the only other thing that i would mention, hopefully continue to work with the staff on that. they did mention [unintelligible] commissioner moore: i wanted to take a second in discuss the suggestion by commissioner antonini. i do not think i want to participate in a design recommendation like this. it comes -- it could create a very difficult situation. i don't think i should really caapprove the project with conditions like that. i am not disrespecting in. commissioner antonini: i believe they have that latitude with the design. >> there isa

antonini: just for discussion purposes, we do have a calendar for the year, but we are not going to take that up today. president miguel: it is not on the agenda. it is strictly a draft. commissioner antonini: unless i hear otherwise, the dates on the calendar will be -- i have a couple of things. i think staff for, as always, the excellent commerce and industry report from 2009. there is good news and bad news. the good news is that san francisco in 2009 was the only county in the bay area to grow both in population and also the number of residents employed in the bay area labor force, which is good. in fact, our increase in unemployment was the lowest of any of the counties, according to their thing. but the bad news is, as many of you have heard, we have lost a lot of employees from state compensation. we lost the entire aaa operation. i did have the occasion to talk to people over the break, both employees and employers, about the things that most drive businesses away or keep businesses from coming here. some of these are beyond our scope. the obviously talked about cost factors and the extraordinary fees and policies that cost businesses a lot more to operate in san francisco than ot

antonini: the only other thing that i would mention, hopefully continue to work with the staff on that. they did mention [unintelligible] commissioner moore: i wanted to take a second in discuss the suggestion by commissioner antonini. i do not think i want to participate in a design recommendation like this. it comes -- it could create a very difficult situation. i don't think i should really caapprove the project with conditions like that. i am not disrespecting in. commissioner antonini: i believe they have that latitude with the design. >> there is a motion and a second to take the d.r. and require the project sponsor is here to the agreement to provide a matching 45 degree angle. president miguel: -mirror image. >> on that motion -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6-1. president miguel: 15 minutes. >> we resume to 6:00 p.m. calendar, close to 10:00 p.m.. item 18, park merced mixed use project overview and development agreement. informational presentation only. if everyone who speaks could approach the shorter microphone, we are having technical difficulties, and we appreciate that. i>> good afternoon. we have this evening the informational hearing for the park merced mixed use project. this is the fourth in a series. in 2010, we had a hearing to go over the project an agreement in general. we had hearings for the open space. in december, we were at san francisco state for a hearing out there. on the 16th, we were back at city hall, wher