of course, as we know, when we extend the period of time, we have to extend, then, the time for comment is and responses so it pushes everything further and further ahead, whether there are any time table problems or thicks that go on. weed are looking at something that's going to be a long-term project. even so, if there's anything critical about that particular extension, then i would like to know about it. if there isn't and project sponsor is in agreement with it, i am ok with it. but it would seem as though staff has suggested a certain amount of time that i think would be adequate. commissio ner lee? commissioner lee: one, i agree with commissioner moore, but we should also look at kerney street. if you walk from broadway to market there are about 26 vacant sites, and actually kerney is pretty bad off. it's not just dirty but looks bad, compared to parts of union square.

regarding commissioner borden's concerns about violations. all along lower to middle polk street there's numerous violations, sign violations, music in the evening violations, a whole bunch of violations, but it's just not there but throughout most of the city. you talk about violations, we have a lot of illegal housing units here. eight years ago when i started on this i wanted to press the commission to legalize all the illegal housing units we have here. but no one, the board of supervisors doesn't want to pick it up. you want to talk about violations and fire and health safety during an earthquake, the one thing the city should tackle are these illegal units. that has the most impact, to the city, for human health and lives, especially during an earthquake. following up yesterday, it tweaked me, i asked the staff for this, that the term reserve

bernanke says we are in an unusual unisn'tty in the economy, so i would like the staff after the budget is don, approved the next week or so, to brief us regarding last year's revenues, and next year's budget, because it should be finalized by next week. and then any forecasting of projects with revenues that you think that we haven't dealt with in the next six months. and i don't think the city also understands this with our budget is that state budgets, 19.1 billion in deficit, they haven't balanced it, we may see another issue with the city's budget. so i think it's good for a planning commission. we had a briefing from you, and your thoughts so the general public can get a sense without including the state budget cuts because we don't know what they are going to be.

finally regarding cpmc, it's a complicated o.i.r., i have seen parts of it and i think maybe the staff should have a community meeting before we hear it here just to explain it. you are talking about so many different campuses and it's a complicated document especially with transportation, and maybe before they come before us, and we will get an overview but maybe staff who is already prepared for the overview, have a meaning down at planning one day or even at the board of supes, to explain to people so by the time they get here, they will be more informed. >> if i could just respond. we have gotten a lot of requests for that as well. the concerns raised by the environmental staff over having a meeting is simply one of what becomes the official e.i.r. hearing and comment. what i have asked staff to do is prepare a memo to post on line and to give to neighborhoods to lay out exactly how the e.i.r. is organized and how best to read it as a first step in the

process. and i will confer more with the city attorney's office about implications of having a meeting during the comment period. not the meeting that's here at the commission. commissioner lee: also can you give us the latest unemployment rate and then assuming that the federal government doesn't fund jobs now, we have about 3,000 people and sort of on the jobs now, i think it's to the end of september. i think this is borer the public to get a sense of where we are with the economy. vice president olague: i just wanted to support commissioner borden's request for a hearing with the enforcement staff, so maybe when commissioner miguel gets back, we can look at the schedule because i do get questions sometimes, people wonder what happens to -- what's the conditions that we sometimes impose and how are they enforced and this sort of thing.

i think it would be useful. as for cpmc, we should continue to have the discussion on this. but i think what i am more concerned about, really, is the way the entire project is going to be calendared. i know there seems to be this puck to get it don within 2010 but i don't think that's a realistic schedule. i don't know if there's extensions or other things the project sponsor has to look into filing. but if we have the comments and responses on the 23rd of september, it will take -- and staff, i want to thank staff for working heart for putting this e.i.r. out. and then it's about a month or more before the comments or responses document will be to us. i just don't see -- a lot of this is going to fall, again, during the thanksgiving and christmas break. it's a discussion for later on, but i am more concerned about that. >> the hearing, the draft e.i.r. of september 23rd, it's highly

unlikely that the comments would be completed by the end of the year because of the nature of the comments, and the notice period. vice president olague: oh, ok. >> and we have informed cpmc of that, they are aware of that. vice president olague: i met with them this morning and they didn't seem to be aware of the fact that some of us may not want to spend another christmas holiday season, poring through project documents. they didn't seem aware of that. when i asked them about it this morning, they seemed to push back on the idea that we wouldn't be hearing it before the end of this year. >> well, we -- vice president olague: that was my impression in my conversations with them. that's all and last year we had candlestick so we spent a lot of our holiday season poreing through the documents and i don't want to have to put the public through another cycle of this. and that's it.

so -- clerk: commissioners if we can move forward to director's announcements, and a review of past week's events. >> thank you commissioners, because commissioner miguel had also supported the extension on cpmc, i am going to assume that the intent of the commission is to extend it to 90 days since you obviously can't take a vote, but i will relate that back. beyond that, i just wanted to give you a couple of highlights of upcoming calendar items because of the break. and just remind you all, or remind the public that housing element draft e.i.r. hearing is scheduled for august 5th. the draft e.i.r. hearing for treasure aid land redevelopment plan is scheduled for the morning of august 12th, and the afternoon of august 12th, i have requested a closed session to discuss my evaluation, my performance

evaluation in which the commissioners are -- should do on an annual basis. the september 16th calendar, which is the calendar that was to be the first after your break is actually quite full with small projects. there's quite a large number of projects, and cpmc, we are clearing that calendar on the 23rd. and the cpmc condition the sole item on that calendar for the direct e.i.r. hearing and in october we will come back to you with information and specific questions for the academy of arts university which you had requested the last time. just as an update. and regarding the housing element, sara dennis and i have had several meetings with various groups to talk about the latest draft. there is some back and forth going on between various organizations who have differing points of view on the latest draft of the housing element. this is san francisco, after all, so we will -- the draft language we put out is what you

will hear on august 5th as part of the e.i.r. and after that, we will be taking comments and tweaking the final language before the final element comes back to you. vice president olague: great. thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: director, i know we discontinued that item from the 2nd to the 12th. i assume the calendar will accommodate that addition to what was -- >> note a problem. commissioner antonini: ok. we do have a hearing on incident 2nd. i know we put something specifically on the 2nd. >> we do not 6 a full commission that day, so the commissioners ever asked that the larger projects not be calendared that day. commissioner antonini: ok. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, ann marie rogers here to give you a report on this week's activities at the board of

supervisors. the land use committee heard a couple of ordinances. the first is interim control imposing a conditional use authorization of a childcare facility of 13 or more children. maxwell and chu signed on in committee. this was approved to the full board. before the committee was one capital avenue. this was a map change that would rezone a large lot from public to rh-1. this commission reviewed it on may 13th of this year when you recommended approval and also recommended the pud for the site. the project would break up into 120 lots into single family townhouses, this week the board recommended approval -- i am sorry, the committee recommended

approval to the full board. at the full board we had a couple of our ordinances. each of these would make four amendments separately. the first was to update the fees for cost recovery. this would, as i said, do four thing is. one, it would -- i am sorry, let me grab the environmental review piece, first, this would increase the fees about 2% and an additional 2% for cost recovery and change the timing of e.i.r. payments, and add a new fee of mitigation and approval monitoring and clarify phase collection and refunds don by other agencies. for the planning code amendment, it would make the 2%, about 2% adjustments, except that the 2% adjustment would not apply to small projects for the cost recovery. so -- but the full 4% would

apply to larger projects. it would also add a new fee for conditional use authorizations for wireless telecommunications facilities and increase the e.i.r. facilities. you heard both of these ordinances on june 24th and you recommended approval of modifications, this week the board did approve the ordinance with your modifications on first reading. there was a proposal by commissioner sugaya for the california pacific medicine call center to a minute of 90 days and conduct a minimum of two hearings on the e.i.r. report because of the project's exceptional size and i think those are the primary issues. i didn't get a report from the board of appeals, so that concludes my report today. >> commissioner lee?

>> do we have one page that lasts all the fees on the website? >> we have a fee sheet. >> but if you go to the home page, it just says fees? >> yes. commissioner antoni commissioner antonini commissioner antonini: a question on the child care legislation being proposed n if they are private organizations, i'm not sure fit's public or private or which it's speaking to, but were it private, it would seem to me there are lots of factors that might enter into decision as to how large your operation should be that might be business decisions that would not really be something under the control of the project sponsor. i'm not quite sure about that. maybe you could get back to me or answer or i may be misunderstanding this -- >> and it would apply to public or private if they had more than 13 children. and they have to get a different se

sert certification from the state and we're working to get a list of all those potential addresses that could be subject to this requirement. and as an interim control, of course, we don't get an opportunity to weigh in at the commission, but there will be permanent control following this up and we can make recommended modifications or changes at that time. commissioner antonini: that wouldn't be on the calendar necessarily. >> it hasn't been drafted yet. commissioner antonini: i would like to see more of that and try to understand obviously what we all want to see as much child care as possible always there, but it may be that it seems like sort of going the opposition direction and usually we give conditional uses when something begins or something enlarges something and this is a reduction which may be out of the control of the owner of the particular facility. >> yes. you may be familiar with we require conditional use authorization for the closure of gas stations and there are

difficulties with that. commissioner antonini: sure. thank you. >> the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and the only item that i think that would be of note would be the certificate of appropriateness for rebuilding the carriage house and i have to report that it was -- we only had six members and it was a split vote, so the commission will continue that item until we have a full commission. no decision was made. with that, commissioners, we can go forward to your consent calendar. item 7 is the consent calendar considered to be routine and would be acted on by a single roll call vote. there is no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff requests, and in that event that matter would be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a scheduled item at this or a

future hearing. let me call it into the record if you don't mind. the item is item 7, case 2010.0183c for 601 clayton street. it is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow the installation of an automatic teller machine, walk-up facility, without providing a 3-foot setback from the front property line of an existing full-service restaurant/bar doing business as hobson's choice located in the haight street district. commissioners, i have no speaker cards for this item. and unless one of you or the public or staff pulls it off consent, the matter is before you. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to pull the item off consent. and i would like to ask why do we have rules which stipulate that a.t.m.'s are setback?

i believe in the city -- >> we're going to be hearing the entire project now. the staff can begin the presentation now. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission. the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization under section 45.2, 03 and 7.90.140 to install an automatic teller machine without the 3-foot setback from the property line of a restaurant/bar hobson's choice. the proposed atm walk-up facility will be 1'8" in width and 2'8" in height and 2'5" in depth and would be located 2'5" above the sidewalk.

the proposed a.t.m. walk-up facility would be open for operation 24 hours a day and not affiliated with any financial institution. as far as issues of consideration, the proposed a.t.m. walk-up facility will replace a facility that was installed approximately 10 years ago and with the permit which has been removed. and the project sponsor had remove it to abate a violation sent by this planning department. as far as the project sponsor has conducted a site survey of the existing a.t.m. walk-up facilities and indicated there is only one local bank and a few a.t.m.'s and the proposed a.t.m. will be one of two that will be open 24 hours a day within the haight street general area. also, as far as some issues and considerations the project

sponsor has indicated there are considerations of why the a.t.m. walk-up facility wasn't set back initially because they believed that it would have a more significant impact of altering the existing building's facade because of structural and cost consideration and, for example, they thought it might be easier from my understanding if they chose to repair and repatch the side wall. and anything tos that, the project's staff -- and in addition to that, the project staff indicated that the property owner preferred not to set the a.t.m. back in because of some of those reasons. and another consideration was that the a.t.m. walk-up facility would be more on the side street which is clayton street versus haigth street and the sidewall width is 15 feet on clayton and wider sidewalk versus haight which has a 12-foot width.

some of those are the considerations to why it was not set back. and to date the planning department hasn't received any phone calls or letters from the public in opposition to the project. there was just one email requesting information on the restaurant use itself. and the planning department's preliminary recommendation is approval with condition. and basically the department believes that the project may be necessary or desirable and there is not overconcentration of a.t.m. walk-up facilities in the area. it will serve the neighborhood by being open 24 hours a day. and it seems what reasonable that although the a.t.m. could have been set back and placed at the property line, it appears somewhat reasonable given the sidewalk width and that it's on more of a side street, clayton, versus haight street.

this concludes the presentation and i am available to answer any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon. samuel deb appears on behalf of the project applicant. just in response to commissioner moore's concerns, the district technically includes haight and clayton is a secondary thoroughfare and the 3-foot setback shouldn't be necessary. additionally as sharon young stated, clayton is 15-foot wide sidewalk. so it's -- haight is 12 feet and with the 3-foot setback that

would be required from the ordinance, on haigh street you get 15 feet which already exists on clayton street and is the secondary with substantially less pedestrian traffic. important to note this a.t.m. has been functional at the site for over 10 years without any citizen complaints. furthermore, the building is historically significant and opening up the building to accommodate a 3-foot setback would certainly alter the facade and destroy the historical character of the building. structurally there's a question as to whether or not it would be wide enough space between the existing sheer wall for the stairwell and the window which appears on clayton street to accommodate the width for the setback opening. also, the store is -- the store's floor t hobson's choice floor is lower than the sidewalk on clayton because it has a slight incline, so there would be some structural difficulty in accomplishing the setback in a

way that would be efficient. and even assuming all those structural obstacles if it was structurally possible, the setback would require opening the existing wall and taking out the existing foundation and putting in a new perimeter foundation and a new header, reframing the walls, uncovering the floors. we don't know exactly what's under the floor under hobson's choice. that would potentially present additional complications and waterproofing and all which would cost in excess of $20,000 to $30,000. and al for probably for those reasons the landlord has refused to allow that structural work to accommodate the 3-foot setback which is why applicants have proposed a conditional use permit. vice president olague: thank you.

is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner lee? commissioner lee: move to approve. >> second. vice president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: they did answer it very well the situation here. and what is different and why this does not need a setback is that what you are trying to do is not infringe upon the sidewalk width and with the 15 feet already there, you allow your 12-foot sidewalk that is apparently what we desire as haight is a narrower sidewalk and seems like it's a position. plus, apparently there was for many years an a.t.m. there that was worked without benefit of a permit. it seemed to be one that had a lot of activity. and finally, i think it is a little bit disturbing that there's so few banks in that area. and that might be something that we might want to encourage in the future is to have more banks and financial services in that

area. because apparently there's only one bank and two that are quite a ways away. i'm supportive. vice president olague: commissioner moore. >> could i have the architect answer a couple of questions for me? >> i am not the architect. commissioner moore: you spoke as if you are. you made statements which acted as if you are an architect. in the drawings i see, i do not see a structural impediment, but i am interested to see what was there before. there is no picture here. i would like to see what people -- what they were as unapproved a.t.m. was it in the same wall? we never had a picture of that.

it is in the same spot? we have a rule that a.t.m.'s should be set back for sidewalk reasons and they are becoming like graphic advertisings and moving out of a small functional box into something that loudly advertises banks. that particular issue has never been taken up by the planning departmentos because i do believe that moved into the poster size advertising realm. the reason why i'm saying it here is you come around the corner, i believe that the corner expression of the restaurant is very much in keeping with what we would like a corner to be, but adding an a.t.m. without setting it back into the solid part of the wall and is very inappropriate to me. and i would very much like to see a recessed a.t.m. for that reason. it goes with the expression of

the building which is more victorian looking building and you said it was of historic importance and putting the a.t.m. on that wall, i believe we are cheapening the expression of the building and i don't believe it's in anybody's interest except having a properly sited and recessed a.t.m. at that corner if we need to have an a.t.m., so i cannot support this solution. i understand you are saying it is more expensive, but that's the way it goes. i cannot support this particular application. olague commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i understand commissioner moore's concerns, but i disagree given that the 15 feet is the same because of the width on haight street is roughly the same and the lack of banks available and 24-hour cash opportunities actually was pretty surprising to me. and the volume of withdrawals from the previous a.t.m. definitely indicates it was a high use or highly desirable and

needed a.t.m. so i actually am inclined to support this one. and give the project sponsor the hardship they claim in recessing it. olague commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: the sidewalk, i believe, right where the a.t.m. is going to be is nowhere near 15 feet wide because there are planters in front of it, which effectively reduces the sidewalk width to about 8 feet. vice president olague: call the question. all right. commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners moore and sugaya vote nothing.

>> commissioners, you are at general comment to fall within 15 minutes and each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. >> i have one speaker card. >> paul wormer. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. fist let me say thank you. i have heard a lot of issues of concern to myself and others that have been considered or will be considered and it's good to hear that those things are making it to the top. i did have one request and i was here before on this issue relating to cpmc and one of the things that would help us