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

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

September 3, 2009

September 3, 2009



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 416

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 3, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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


STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Corey Teague, Elizabeth Watty, Sharon Lai, Ben Fu, Lily Langlois, Pilar LaValley, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.


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.

1a. 2008.0315D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

829 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue between Argent and Dixie Alleys, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 2778 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.29.9251, proposing the demolition of a single-family dwelling, located in the RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 6, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 17, 2009)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Borden

1b. 2009.0062D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

829 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue, between Argent and Dixie Alleys, extending through to Market Street, Lots 016 & 029 in Assessor's Block 2778 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.29.7248, proposing the construction of a new four-family dwelling, located in the RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 6, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 17, 2009)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Borden


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

2. 2009.0340C (S. LAI: (415) 558-9087)

1915 IRVING STREET (AKA 1905 IRVING STREET) - south side between 20th 21st Avenues; Lot 052 of Assessor's Block 1775 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections, 711.44 and 303, to convert a retail commercial space to a small self-service restaurant, within the Irving Street Special Use NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small Scale District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Borden

MOTION: 17942


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.

3. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 17, 2008.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 7, 2008.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2008.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 6, 2009.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 13, 2009.


ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Borden

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 Antonini:

I have a couple of comments. One is the result of the news of some tragic fires that occurred while we were on our break. And while I haven't talked to the Fire Department on these, often times there is the usual causes like smoking or perhaps some illegal drug manufacturing, but many times its overloaded electrical and too much garbage accumulating. Unfortunately sometimes these are the result of too many units and too many people and too little space. I expressed an idea some months ago and I'd like to ask the planning staff to comment on it (not today, but to look into it), but it is an idea. As we know, these 100 year old units are very expensive to restore. A huge percentage of these are under rent control and other restrictions that make it difficult for an owner to perhaps make the restorations in a way that can upgrade the safety features and everything. My concept was a trade where – and this would be something that would have to be initiated administratively, probably at the Board of Supervisors, but certainly the idea where an owner could take post 1976 units and put those under rent control and [other] controls and thereby eliminate some of the controls on the older units to be able to realize enough from the units to be able to make these improvements that would make them larger for families; upgrade the electrical systems; a lot of things that are extremely expensive when you've got older units. It's just a concept that I had and certainly I think the city would still have the same number of units that would be protected but the protections would be on the newer units which are ones that you can probably afford to put less maintenance into because they are newer units and some would be traded for units that take these costs. It's just something I'd like to throw out there as an idea for the future.

My other comment has to do with – I happened to dig up a copy of California History and it had an article in the early edition of 2008 about Allister McKenzy and Robert Hunter who were famous golf course architects. They designed some very famous courses in California, inspired initially by Lincoln Park, which they didn't do – it pre dated them. They did things like Cyprus Point, which is the most famous, & , and one of them is Sharp Park, which has come under some question lately because of a problem that some people have found dealing with some endangered species. Among all these courses that they designed, only Sharp Park and Northwood Golf Course up at Russian River are the only courses that the average golfer can afford to play on because the others are either private clubs or very expensive. I actually called the Planning Director in Pacifica because I think there is some jurisdictional issues here and he kind of said off the record [he affirmed what I thought from having played golf and being familiar with this for many years] that we have a co-existence going on. In fact in the  80s there was a reconfiguration of some of the holes because of the result of very heavy rain years where some water came in and they sort of had to move the course a little bit away from the coast. I think some of these problems have already been addressed. I hope we can find a way to historically landmark the course with all 18 holes. They have already done so with their club house. It was originally built in 1932. Figure out a way even if it means locating one of the holes or something on the hillside where three of them now exist – there is a way to keep that course in place because I think it's one of the things that we as San Franciscans treasure and we certainly appreciate the work of our ancestors over the last 150 years to create one of the worlds most beautiful cities and out lying areas on what was previously a barren, windy, sandy and often cold and foggy peninsula. I think we have to tread lightly when we start thinking about tearing out things that are historical.

Commissioner Moore:

On Tuesday the AIA sponsored Architecture and the City Festival [she held up a pamphlet]. For anybody who wants to take a look at it, I think it is a treasure trove for anybody who is interested in architecture and the subtleties of what is going on behind the scenes should look at this program or visit their web site at AIASF/ARCINTHECITY. This thing is going on through September 30th and there is something for everybody. It is really quite good and I encourage everybody to look at it.

On a slightly more sober note: The other day there was an article in the New York Times that very clearly summarized that some buildings are not living up to their green label. I found that article rather disturbing. Aside from LEED certification, which is really honoring an architect's intent to build a green building, between construction and building performance there is a significant breakdown of what really ultimately warrants a green recognition for a building. The energy performance of about 53 of those buildings is not even meeting green star standards. LEED is considering revising the rating system and I just want to put us on notice that just for an architect to design a green building is not necessarily a reason to award a building more exemptions or special consideration. The devil is in the details and that is when a building is built and is performing. I just want to pass that article around and have everybody else draw their own conclusions.

Commissioner Lee:

The latest unemployment rate for San Francisco is 9.9%. I know the city itself, the Planning Department issues every year our employment status. What I'd like to find out from the staff if we can get it, is where is our unemployment broken down? Is it mostly financial, or is it mostly the trades here, is it Local 2? That is important for us because I think we've got to start looking at if the downturn in the economy continues for another year or two years we could have as many as 50% of our carpenters out of work. Having said that, I want to follow up on my request regarding Oz Erickson who at a conference that some of the commissioners attended made a statement that each unit downtown that's being built for a condo, that $80,000 of it goes to the city. And I think I've asked staff to ask Mr. Erickson to come here to testify to that. What I'd like to have is the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, SPUR, the Labor Council, the Trades actually come here and tell us what should we be doing in anticipation of an even larger downturn in the next year given that we know four or five pieces of property that have been sold that have gone bankrupt – hotels and commercial properties – which will affect our tax base which will mean from what I hear from Sacramento that statewide the assessment of property tax of property will be going down which will affect us. I'd like to have the other commissioners agree that we should invite some of these organizations, especially labor, since they have a lot in layoff, and then ask the Chamber and SPUR and the City's economist to come here and give us a break down in the type of unemployment we have. Is it mostly at the lower end, middle or upper end? Talk to the Convention and Visitor's Bureau to figure out how many people that work in the hotels don't have jobs. And then the trades are very important because they are very well paid but they have quite a few laid off now. I think we need as a Planning Commission to know and let the rest of the people in the city know that we are trying to address the issue.

Regarding the LEED issue that Commissioner Moore did bring up: We do know that doing the higher level, the platinum level, is very expensive. I think, and this is where I disagree with Commissioner Moore, I don't know which level we are going to look at but if someone is welling to spend the extra money then I think we should support that. I think the Solar SF program we have in the city where we have 2,000 buildings that have solar panels is very expensive but the city subsidizes that by 10% depending if hiring people who are unemployed. The federal government gives you tax credits and so does the state. So regarding some of the LEED standards I think the city should take a look at it and say let's encourage people for the future. Whether you get platinum or gold or just certified, I think that is something we should take a look at.

Commissioner Antonini:

I just wanted to agree with Commissioner Lee. I think that is a good suggestion. I think I'd heard that the hotel occupancy rates were fairly good but they've had to drop the room rates quite a bit to be able to do that. And I also would agree with Commissioner Moore and perhaps there is a way we could have information from planning staff as to what kind of checks do we have on people as far as whether they actually deliver on their LEED claims and stuff in the future and how we could monitor that.

Commissioner Miguel:

I was in New York for the last couple of weeks and talked to a number of people regarding the New York Times article. What they were telling me was that it was not so much the architects and the construction but it was the operation of the buildings. It's somewhat akin to what happens in areas like recreation and parks where you put a great park together but you have no maintenance. So five years down the line everyone is complaining that the place doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. There is a big fall off between the actual LEED and the operation of it which has a totally different, if any, standard to it unfortunately. But I think you have to take that into consideration. It is an important question. I appreciate the fact that LEED is going to at least review the way they handle things and the possibility, at least the article inferred, that the rating would not be certified until after a year or so of actual operation.

Also, for those of you who have been in New York recently, I hope that you have been to the High Line, which is the old industrial railroad tracks on the west side through the meat packing district that used to bring the cargo in and out of the meat packing district and the other heavy industrial areas. One third, or the first of three sections has been converted to a 30-foot in the air park. One of the most innovative and interesting designs I have yet seen in park space. I think it is extremely well done. It is open from relatively early in the morning until 10 o'clock at night and it's in constant use. They are sort of shooing people out of there at 10 at night, even Monday and Tuesday nights, let alone the weekends. It has totally invigorated the area. One of the reasons I particularly wanted to see it both day and night was not just the design and landscape design and how they are handling it, is when we have talked about the fact of a raised park above our transit center that is in progress, we keep talking about activating it. I have been one of those who have done that. I find it very interesting that at the moment this very active space has three little carts on it – one for gelato, one for coffee and I forget the third one [lemonade] – and they are not always open. That's it. That is the activation and yet it is in constant use. I've started to re-think my concept on this a little bit and if you go onto their website there is a slide show and the design elements on it that I think you will find very interesting.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Because staff is so responsive to commissioner's requests, I have already been to the High Line this weekend. I spend a lot of time on the High Lind and it is very interesting and I thought of the same link with the Transbay Terminal. I think there is a critical difference. This is 40 feet wide and it is not a platform you can go on for 40 feet. There is tons of greenery and open space and planting and changes in levels. It is really fascinating. The other interesting thing is that a lot of it is located right now the first segment in the meat packing district. The meat packing district is sort of the hot, hip area of New York. Many of the designers are down there. So when you are walking around down there, you see a very rarefied New Yorker. Go 30 feet up unto the High Line, and you see people that really represent much more New York City I think and a much broader aspect. The change in elevation changes the populace dramatically. It is very interesting and I had an opportunity to talk with one of the design people and we talked about some of the technicalities. They used transferable of development rights like we use transferable development rights. From a bureaucratic process it is very interesting also and I hope to do a little brown bag slide show in the near future on it. I also saw a lot of great urban design architecture that has recently been built. I also saw some very poor architecture by named architects that we won't mention.

Commissioner Miguel:

The other thing that I might mention that I found out and I was able to take a look at three is the closing off of streets or portion of streets to use as park land similar to some of the experimentation that we are currently doing here. There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for it. They seem very well used, highly sought after areas. They are improving the retail directly surrounding them and so far they have been very effective. At least to the people I'm talking to and I don't have a lot of contacts back there, there has not been very much opposition even in the original concept of them. They are working. They are really working.


5. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Good afternoon Commissioners. Welcome back. I hope you've had a good summer break. On Commissioner Miguel's last item – what we call Pavement to Parks – as you know the first one was done at 17th, Market and Castro. It has been a very big success. We have two more under construction right now that will be open in about a week. One is at the corner of 16th and 8th in Potrero Hill and the second is at the intersection of San Jose and Guerrero at 28th Street. Both of those are literally under construction right now and will be opening I think next week. If I may, I want to give a plug to Andres Power on the staff who has been personally managing those almost the entire process from design to personally buying furniture and planting plants. We actually have organized a volunteer effort where staff can go out and help do the planting of the plants tomorrow. It's kind of a fun project for staff as well as for the city.

Just a couple of comments on my activities: As you know I have been involved with the upcoming ULI convention. I passed out today a memo with the schedule of events. There are several highlighted items that have to do with San Francisco projects. Two of those are being sponsored by the Department. We also are taking advantage of a third session that has been put together by EDAW where five (5) west cost Planning Directors, including myself, will all be in town for a session and what is not on that schedule is that we have tentatively scheduled an event with SPUR for the evening of Wednesday, November 3 where we would bring those same directors together for an event at SPUR. It will be San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and Vancouver. There are other events there also and you will note in my memo that ULI is offering a scholarship program to public officials on a first come first served basis. So if you are interested, please let us know and we will get our names on the list for that.

Regarding Commissioner Lee's comment: I have asked Mr. Erickson to give us more detailed information about his comments at the Business Times Breakfast meeting regarding impact fees. I've gotten this question a lot over the past few weeks. Staff is looking at those numbers and what I'd like to do is report back to you on our take on the cost of the impact fees. I believe his numbers were based on the numbers associated with One Rincon in which I think would have the highest fee just because of the nature of that project. But we will do a little comparison for you.

Finally, on the LEED item, your comments Commissioner Miguel are exactly what I had learned as well about the actual performance of green buildings. That often a building doesn't perform as expected essentially because of the plug load – everything from people bringing in their own refrigerators and plugging them in to the office to how the mechanical systems are operated. The whole operation of a building is really not something that LEED in and of itself is not set up to deal with and in a way, it can't. But it does suggest that there is a whole educational system that the Green Building Council and others I think are working on with building owners and how buildings are actually operated. The other thing to remind you is that we actually do not give & , there are currently no particular incentives – in fact the recent changes to the city's Building Code will require that buildings above a certain threshold are now LEED Silver and I think in two years most of them will be required to become LEED Gold. That is an out right requirement in the Code right now. From the Department standpoint, we are encouraging people to beyond LEED Gold. There is a Director's bulletin (what we call our Priority Processing) that suggests that we are giving priority processing currently to projects that provide LEED Gold plus 10 points. So [although] not quite LEED Platinum, but [it is] beyond LEED Gold. So people who really want to start pushing the envelope we are encouraging them to do so.

I also want to mention that you have asked for a number of joint hearings with different commission over the past few months and we are trying to organize those. They are logistically a little difficult to organize, more than they should be, but for whatever reason it is hard to get two groups together. But we do have the joint hearing I think as you know on September 17th with the Health Commission. We are working on joint hearings with the Rec/Park Commission which looks to be in mid November and staff is also working with the Small Business Commission for a joint hearing as well also in the Fall.

Commissioner Lee:

Speaking of New York and San Francisco and the parks, there is a lady that has an office in New York and San Francisco; and she has done work in San Francisco called the Living Library. I don't know if you have seen some of her work. She has got something on Irving Street – 6th or 9th – where she puts everything green, but it also educates the general public. She actually got a UNESCO Award for that. Bonny Sherik is her name. She has been around the city about twenty years. She wanted to develop Civic Center Plaza where not really is it greening but it us educational and has a motif to it. I have been working with her to try to get her to China – she has been there a couple of times – to put in a Living Library to educate the young people of how to green your city, but also to educate the young people and also have edible fruits and she did something on a roof somewhere in New York city that tweaked my interest. What I will do is email you her email address here and in New York and maybe if you want to talk to her about the next wave of greening she would be the appropriate person to talk to.

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






  • the Commission held Election of Officers. Charles Chase was elected President and Courtney Damkroger was elected Vice President
  • An Architectural Review Committee was established with Commissioners Hasz, Martinez and Wolfram as the members. President Chase is an ex-officio member and can only participate/vote if one of the other members is absent
  • Commissioner Martinez was appointed to the Historic Preservation Funds Committee and a formal letter of his appointment will be sent to the Mayor's Office.
  • Following discussions of the Park Branch Library and the North Beach Branch Library for landmark designations as well as discussion of the multiple property listing of the Appleton & Wolfard libraries, the Commission instructed that these items be calendared on their 9/16 calendar for possible initiation action

6. (b. fu: (415) 558-6613)

2235 3rd Street - Informational Presentation on project modifications, as submitted in a request for Zoning Administrator written determination that the Project is in general conformity with Motion No. 17680. The Project revisions include unit count increase to 196, unit mix and size, for a previously approved 179-unit mixed used commercial and residential project. The project also proposes minor facade alterations.

SPEAKERS: Patrick McNerney – President of Martin Building Co – Project Sponsor, Valentina Imbeni, Greg Daniels, Joe Boss

ACTION: None – informational only – following the hearing and commission comments, Zoning Administrator stated he found the project modifications to be in general conformity with prior approvals found in Motion No. 17680

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

ABSENT: Borden


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.


Michael Nulty

RE: Requested that the Commission approve the Conditional Use for 90 Turk Street


7. 2009.0379Z (L. Langlois: (415) 575-9083)

Bayview Technical Map Amendments - This Map amendment addresses miscellaneous parcels throughout the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, an area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez to the north, Bayshore Boulevard to the west, San Mateo County line to the South and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The purpose of this map amendment is two fold: to make technical revisions to the Bayview Hunters Point PDR rezone completed in June 2008, and to rezone some parcels that are still zoned M-1 to zoning designations that match existing land uses with the long term intent to maintain the existing uses. The Planning Commission will consider a resolution of intent to initiate Zoning Map amendments consisting of revisions to Sectional Maps ZN08, ZN10, and SU10 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco. This amendment would: 1) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Bayshore Boulevard, Kirkwood Avenue, and Third Street from M-1 (Light Industrial) or M-2 (Heavy Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair).; 2) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Newcomb Avenue, Rankin Street, Elmira Street and Industrial Street from C-M (Heavy Commercial), M-1 (Light Industrial), PDR-1-B/PDR-2 (Light Industrial Buffer/ Production, Distribution and Repair) to PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer) or PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair); 3) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by McKinnon Avenue, Phelps Street, Oakdale Avenue, and Quint Street from M-1(Light Industrial) or RH-2 (Residential) to P (Public); 4) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Williams Ave, Kalmanovitz Street, Egbert Avenue, and Newhall Street from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer), PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) or RH-1 (Residential); 5) reclassify certain the parcels within the area generally bounded by Revere Avenue, Mendell Street, Egbert Avenue and Hawes Street from M-1 (Light Industrial), PDR-1-B/PDR-2 (Light Industrial Buffer/ Production, Distribution and Repair, PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer), or PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) to PDR-1-B, PDR-2, RH-1(Residential) or RH-2 (Residential); 6) apply the Design and Development Special Use to certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Donner Avenue, Jennings Street Egbert Avenue, and Third Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution of intent to initiate the Zoning Map amendments to allow the Department to advertise a later public hearing.


ACTION: Approved initiation

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden and Lee


8a. 2009.0476CV (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

178 TOWNSEND STREET - northeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 3788 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 803.9 to allow renovation and construction of a vertical addition to provide up to 94 dwelling units, ground floor retail space and daycare space, and up to 45 off-street parking spaces, in an approximately 62 foot tall building. The Zoning Administrator will hear related rear yard, parking, and dwelling unit exposure variance requests. The subject property is within an SLI (Service, Light Industrial) District with a 65-X Height and Bulk District and within the South End Historic District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Patrick McNerney – President of Martin Building Co. – Project Sponsor, Valentina Imbeni – Piccola Scuola Italiana, Greg Daniels – Piccola Sauola Italiana, Michael Theriault – SF Building Trades, Tom Radulovich – Livable City, Andy Thornley - SF Bicycle Coalition, Tim Colen – SF Housing Action Coalition, Kate Lefkowitz – SF Housing Action Coalition, Manuel Flores – Carpenters Local 22, Steve Aiello – SF Housing Action Coalition, Joel Hobbel – Local 6

ACTION: Approved with the added condition that the project sponsor continue working with staff on the Clarence Place side design

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Lee, and Moore

EXCUSED: Antonini and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

MOTION: 17944

8b. 2009.0476CV (P. LAVALLEY (415) 575-9084)

178 TOWNSEND STREET - northeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 3788 – Request for Variance pursuant to Planning Codes Sections 134, 140, and 151 from rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, and parking requirements, to allow renovation and construction of an addition to provide 94 dwelling units and commercial space. The subject property is within an SLI (Service, Light Industrial) District with a 65-X Height and Bulk District and within the South End Historic District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 8a

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance subject to the standard conditions of approval

9. 2008.1354C (c. teague: (415) 575-9081)

201 folsom street (aka 314 main street) -south side between Main and Beale Street, Lot 003 (previously Lot 001) in Assessor's Block 3746 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303(e) to modify the performance period condition of Motion No. 16647 for Case No. 2000.1073C to extend the approval period another 3 years from the date of expiration of the original approval of a mixed use project consisting of two residential towers of heights of 350 and 400 feet above an 80-foot podium, with up to 725 dwelling units, 750 off-street parking spaces, 38,000 square feet of commercial space, and 272 replacement off-street parking spaces for the adjacent USPS facility, in a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density District) and a 400-W Height and Bulk District, and within the Folsom and Main Residential/Commercial Special Use District. No changes are proposed for the existing project as originally approved.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Carl Shannon – representing the developer, Andrew Phipps Brooks, Reed, sue Hestor, Andrew Junius – representing the project sponsor

ACTION: approved

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

MOTION: 17945

10. 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 Take Discretionary Review, Approve with Modifications


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 9/10/09

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

ABSENT: Borden


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))


Sue Hestor

RE: The Commission should take a walking tour of Rincon Hill

Adjournment: 4:50 p.m.

Adopted: September 17, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:40 PM