vice president olague: we are having technical difficulty

folks, so i apologize, once we resolve it, we will start the meeting.

clerk: good afternoon, this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday, july 22nd, 2010. prior to taking roll, let me just make a couple of announcements. we ask that it's very important that you not engage in secondary discussions while in this room. if you feel the need to do so, go outside with those discussions. they become extremely disruptive to the process, the whispers, all of that, take them outside, please. also turn off your cell phones, your pagers, any electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. the commission will not tolerate disruptions of any sort including clapping, yelling, cheering, speaking out of order, etc. roll call -- [ roll call ] clerk: and congratulations

commissioners moore and suggest guy ya on your reappointment and swearing in today. [ roll call ] clerk: president miguel is absent today commissioners, first item on calendar, items fortunance, item 1, 2006.1006e for 222 2nd street, items 2a, b, c, and d, companion cases, proposed for continuance, august 5th, item 3, for 3281 16th street, this project has been withdrawn and the matter is no longer before the commission for any consideration. further on the calendar,

commissioners case 2010.0130 it, item 17, upper unit, please note that the discretionary review for this item has been withdrawn and the matter is no longer before you for any type of consideration. for the benefit of the public, please note there have been some questions, if necessary, to take a couple of items, to hear a couple of items later on the calendar, that would be item 12' and b, if necessary to move those items to the calendar. that means items 14, 15, and 16 would move up and be considered following item 11. vice president olague: that is collect. clerk: with that, commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on calendar being proposed for continuance or that has been withdrawn.

vice president olague: to open it up for pup comment on items proposed for continuance. >> sue hester, attorney for the 246 2nd street homeowners association. the president of the association had intended to address you, but he has a sick child and asked me to come in his stead. the homeowners association is a condo building one block away from this building. it is the project that people most directly affected by this project. we are asking for a one-week continuance from the 5th to the 12th. when the first -- there were extensive comments from the homeowners on the d.e.i.r. those of you remember it, it was

a knotty, passive case. these people are involved. they have been watching to find out when the hearing was and at the end of june the hearing was announced for the 2nd. it was announced in the paper and on posters on site and notices were issued. people made then their vacation arrangements. they held off until the hearing was on. two different units, including mr. dagopia, his family, made -- paid reservations to visit his family, costs a lot of money, nonrefundable tickets, $5,000, he is asking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of another tenant who also did the same thing, that it be continued one week, so he doesn't have to choose between representing the homeowners association and

taking a vacation with his family. it's a reasonable request. one week. before the 22nd was set, the planning staff checked with the developer, they agreed to the date and then the developer found out that mr. miguel would not be here and he asked for the change. at no point was anybody else consulted about the date. we find out about these things by noticed and we found out it was proposed to a date that is really disruptive to the plans for the homeowners association. a one-week continuance for the interest of fairness so that people do not have to lose their vacations and all their money. we are not asking to be continued to october, just for one week. mr. julius knows this request has been made and he has rejected it already so i am interested in hearing his rationale. but in the interest of fairness, when staff does negotiations with one side and doesn't even

talk to the other side before dates are set, it's not really fair. thank you. >> commissioners, andrew ju in nius, on behalf of the project sponsor, we are asking you to continue the dates august 5th as set forth in the calendar. there is certainly more than enough time to prepare for this hearing. the seek request materials have already been out, you have had them for two weeks, miss hester's clients have had them for two weeks and they will have another two weeks. packets are going to you today fully two weeks in front of the hearing that we are hoping to have on august 5th. you know, i have a tough time believing that miss hester also

didn't inform her clients that sometimes hearing dates change. in this case it is changing because our architects are not available today. that's the reason. we couldn't go forward with the hearing on the 22nd because our team was not going to be ready. we were given the date by staff. we've been requesting the earliest possible date since last year, and the earliest we could get was the 22nd. it turned out our team could not be prepared on the 22nd. that is the basis of our request. our team will be available on the 25th and we want to present the case to you then. you know, our team has already changed its plans several times to try to get this hearing to happen as quickly as possible. the 5th is where we have taken our plans, everybody on our side has scheduled this hearing. the idea that miss hester didn't know until -- i don't know when she knew that we made the

question for the hearing change. we made the question two weeks ago, the minute we found out our team wouldn't be ready. i cannot believe that she didn't have that request. it's been two weeks. she never contacted me. i haven't contacted here, her clients have refused to communicate with us. we would just like to go forward on the 5th, thank you. >> hi, i am carl shannon. i reiterate -- >> speak into the mic. >> sorry, this is carl shannon, i reiterate that we are trying to reschedule to make sure tom pfeiffer is here, and we are trying to bring great architects to san francisco to have great buildings. he's in des moines today with another client i could not trump and mr. mannis is in

philadelphia. ply apologies, but august 5th would be great in terms of having them both. vice president olague: any additional public comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, this item is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i was going to move items 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d to august 5th. clerk: item 3 is withdrawn. vice president olague: well i am going to speak against the motion because i think that the neighborhood association is making a modest request. that isn't a lot. today it was moved to accommodate the project sponsor. when people make plans for their summer vacations, they are not always, you know, people usually buy tickets in advance, so it's possible that he purchased

thosing tickets before he knew of this continuance to the 12th. and i know that mr. junius raised the issue of reviewing materials in time to review materials. but that wasn't the point i heard miss lester make, but it was to accommodate the neighborhood association who showed out in numbers at the draft e.i.r. hearings. i think it's critical that people in the neighborhood and their needs are taken into consideration and i don't believe that request of an additional being, given that it's summer and people tend to take family vacations in summer, in august, that it's an unreasonable request to postpone for one week. so i think project sponsor's needs are obviously important, but so are the neighborhood's needs. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask staff questions on this.

so originally, this was noticed for today, and it's been represented by, i mean, the project sponsor that about two weeks ago, they asked you for the continuance, is that correct? >> correct, a little over two weeks. commissioner antonini: , ok, two and a half weeks ago, did you inform the dir requesters of that continuance? >> this is technically not a dr case. commissioner antonini: , yeah, i misspoke. >> so i informed miss lester of the continuance when she contacted me, i forget the date that exactly occurred. commissioner antonini: so that kind of answers my questions as to, you know, if these reservations were made, they were made fairly quickly. but i would probably be in favor of the motion as stated, thanks. commissio ner