assure you. >> we have the motion and the second to approve, with conditions. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes, 6-0. this puts us back, now, on the regular calendar. this is as designed. this is item number 12. >> please excuse the interruption. on item number 10 and 11, you continued this to december 2nd. there was a misunderstanding about the preferred date. the preferred date was next

week. so, i would request that what we'd have to do is let the people who attended the hearing know about this change. you would have to take a new action. >> the attorney says we can do that under one motion. >> we will continue to november 4. >> does the maker have to do that or can anyone? >> i think it was me. >> i think you were, also. >> item 10 was commissioner antonini. what we will do, november 4. i am going to move to rescend the continuance of items 10 and 11. this is to december 2nd and

continue them to november 4th. >> seconded. >> and is there an agreement? >> the seconder of that motion was commissioner sugaya. >> that's me. >> i have a question. >> do we know if supervisor chu has set up a meeting. >> there is one on monday. >> just one other comment, if we need to continue this, we could. this may be ok. i just -- without the partys being present, we will go with that. >> there is a motion and a second to rescend this from the 2nd to november 4th.

commissioners? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. and now this is item 12, 2006 at 350 mission street. draft environmental impact report. comments will be allowed until 5:30 on december 10. >> i am brett bollinger. this is a hearing to receive comments on the draft of cir impact report, the mission street project. there is the demolition of an

existing retail building and construction of a new 370 ft high office building with retell usage, 64 parking spaces. the staff is not here to answer your comments today, comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. we will respond to all verbal and written comments that we receive, and we will make provisions as appropriate. the hearing for approval or disapproval continue after this. that should be connected to the accuracy of the eir. please speak clearly so we can have an accurate transcript. and please state your name so

that you can be adequately identified and you can be sent a copy of the comments for this document. after hearing the comments of the general public we will take any comments by the planning commission. the public comment period began september 15 until november 2, 2010. this concludes my presentation on this matter. and unless the commission has any questions i would ask that the public hearing be open. >> >> my comment card is for lee molten. you are right. is there any public comment on this item, the draft eir? in that case, public comment is closed. as you have heard, the comment period is open until november 1.

this is monday. >> november 2nd. >> november 1st is on the draft eir. >> that was because the project was continued. >> i don't have a problem. tuesday. very good. antonini? commissioner antonini: this was well done and compliant with planning. it goes on to present other alternatives. that seems to be quite good. the co-complying without exemption, and the others that

deal with certain parts of the project. the e.i. r. is happy with this. >> the eir was complete and adequate. i look forward to the project coming before us. >> that will put us on item 13. case 2010.0470c. this is a conditional use authorization. >> i am putra of the department staff. this is for a change of use from retell coffee stored to a self- service restaurant on 2301 market street in the commercial district.

they are doing business through power up cafe with a gold's gym. this contains 550 square feet. this does not involve any improvement by the tenants. the project sponsor wants to have this occupied by a self- service restaurant that does not formula of retail. they can support this product because the company was planning to close the cafe. the department recommends approval with conditions and sciences to be desirable for the following reasons. this is consistent with the general plan, and the projects usage will generate additional commercial activity. and is currently has 11 vacancies, and this is also well serviced by the public transit.

the neighborhood contains a mixture of neighborhood retail, and services, and it should not be adversely affected by changing these to allow a small self-service restaurant. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. >> the project sponsor? >> good afternoon or good evening, commissioners. this is a very modest application, between castro and market. simply allowing the new restaurant owner to sell food that is not prepackaged, food that may be made of side or on site. opposite this is proposed as a small self-service restaurant. there is no table service.

this is to encourage the members of the gym to have food available to them. and the reason that the restaurant owner is not here, is because they cannot commit until the conditional use is approved for them to make food there. >> thank you. >> other any additional public comments on this item? if not, the public, is closed. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> i would like to clarify. [no audio] >> there is an owner with a letter of intent. we're not making this public but

they cannot sign the lease until they know that they can be located there. they would just be there selling prepackaged foods and coffee. >> commissioner? commissioner sugaya: there is news of the golds gym franchises severing ties to the organization, that is contributing money to causes not favorable to san francisco. >> to our interests. >> moore? commissioner moore: the community is in support of this. i have spoken to the neighborhood organizations and they believe that they are

stepping out of their corporate structure because of these reasons -- >> commissioners -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes, 6-0. which puts us on item 14, 2009- 0278c, for 1814-1816 anza street. >> is there nobody here? >> let's -- forgive me.

this is a staff -- the staff is not present. >> let's hold this and move to 15. >> item 15, 2010.0039c. for 185 berry street, the conditional use authorization. >> starting to listen to the game. >> it's not on yet. >> yes, it is. >> 4:37. >> have you seen the recommendation?

>> would you like to move to the next one? >> i can do no. 16. >> the case before you is number 2010.0039c, the proposal for three new panel incentives for part of the wireless transmission network, operated by verizon. this complies with the applicable requirements of these policies, and the facility's guidelines. we recommend that you approve the request with conditions. and i have the speaker card. >> the project sponsor?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. we concur with all the staff recommendations and if you have any questions i will be happy to address them. >> and is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment has been closed. commissioner borden? >> i will move to approve. >> on that motion -- >> borden? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved, that motion passes 5-0. this is item 17, 20100788u. file number 10-1094 for the

child care feasibility study. >> the ordnances before you requires a city agency or private developer to produce funds for the development project for the building site for child care. as you go into the specifics of this, it would be better to let you know that the department and others are concerned about this. the supervisors set up a working group with members from the department of children and families and youth, as well as the office of work force and economic development and planning department, and together we worked on modifications that they would be sponsoring and the supervisor has agreed to. the modifications would be to not apply this requirement to the people with funding, but just to the people with projects. and this would focus that the city is a leader in providing child care.

penny new needs, and the cost of providing these services should be known, and budgeted out. the department of children use and families would provide all of the information for the feasibility study that is related to child care needs and it was held up the sponsoring city agency. and i have a statement that supervisor dufty was wanting to have read. this is actually from his aide, for the supervisor. we're asking for you to support this with the modifications before you. >> and is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment has been closed. >> i was wanting to ask some questions, about what project

that this would apply to? >> i am going into the full explanation. >> can you give me the examples, with the leasing of space? >> this would apply to when the city was going to purchase this space in excess of more than 25,000 square feet. >> i am just trying to think. >> when the planning department moved their offices, -- we have a stable lease. this is when they are looking to relocate with the new offices. >> i do not have anything against this legislation, but it seems that we have a much larger issue related to child care and not that many opportunities with the city is leasing the new space. and it seems like -- >> we do currently have the child care -- and we have the

hotel developments to add more than 50,000 square feet. they will have to pay into this for the child care. the feasibility study that is required to be submitted, opera that we're looking at right here. we are looking into how much this would cost to provide child care to the employees. we will look at the architectural space, for all the information about the existing deficit of child care, and if there is need for this agency. if the board is approving the funding. this was not in the original legislation. this will give you a control, and the board can say that this is a reasonable amount of money for you to provide and we would like for you to add this into your budget. all you can say that the burden is too high, and we will approve the budget without the child care. but it will bring this into the

dialogue and it will make certain that this happens. >> this is trying to create parity with what we expect. >> the planning code applies to everybody, except the federal government and the redevelopment agency. this may also apply. this is a very low impact fee. >> that would have the impact the and the feasibility as well. but there is nothing to take into account, moving forward within the impact? >> you can decide to actually provide child care so if they did this do not have to pay the impact fee. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i think in terms i am -- in principle, i am in support of this ordinance. my concern is that we very recently had a very large develop -- rebel the project

being developed under the development agreement, with treasure island and hunter's point. and the more remote location of these projects, including the hotel and the office space of significant size, my question is whether these projects would fall under this provision, based on what you are saying, that the redevelopment project -- that this would be concerned that we are leaving a very large hole in these areas. >> we do not have jurisdiction in these areas. we do not have the ability to place specific controls on these or the federal government, as much as we may want for them to participate we do not have the jurisdiction. >> but those projects have child care as part of the plan? >> this is part of the development. i know that the federal

government building is a joint venture between the government and private development with a very large child care facility. and the federal government is quite aware of what it takes. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: can you tell me what this means? >> this is part of the concerns that were raised in the other agencies, because this was not defined. this is with the feasibility studies and we were wondering if the study would run between 5- $20,000. there is a small amount of city funding. this is one reason we recommended the modification. >> it says that after the study, with the provision of job care not being given to the working

group legislation being modified, if this is not required, then why are you doing this? >> we did recommend adding -- >> this is just a political football pin it will never be landing. >> it can go up to the discretion of the decision makers, and they always did a very good job with these bodies. >> thank you very much. >> we had some questions that may have been asked already. the modifications and the staff modifications would be applied only to the city occupied projects. we will bring this up to 50,000 which is in requirements of these projects and we would vote to approve the modified projects.

it sounds like this makes sense to me and i would move to approve. do we have any public comment on this? >> there has been public comment. is this seconded? >> this is the staff proposal, with the modifications to specifically talk about the occupied projects only, and the projects a 50,000 or more square feet, and the other modifications of the staff are included. commissioners, there is a motion to approve, would staff modifications. -- with staff modifications. >> aye. >> aye. >> sugaya?

>> maybe. >> that's a no. >> aye. >> so moved. it passes 6-0. we now have staff for item 14, case 2009.02780c at 1814-1816 anza street. >> i am sorry for my tardiness. this is for the conditional use of authorization to turned pet building into a church. this is on the north side of anza street in the richmond neighborhood. the planning code requires additional use authorization, for religious institutions in

this zoning district. had this requires conditional approval for the loss of a couple of dwelling units. this would create a church called king lutheran church, for 120. minor changes are proposed for the front facade. and there the significant alterations. there is no parking required were proposed. this does not meet the desirable finding in session 303 because this would remove the park -- the living units and this is in conflict with the desire to maintain existing housing. and having this adjacent to one another would create a noise impact but that does not currently exist with these congregations sharing space. the department is recommending disapproval.

>> the project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i am the sponsor of the project. i am the architect of this project. in september 2008, we went to the office to remodel the building at 1814 and 1816 anza for church use. this could be the modification for the church on the space it shared with the zion lutheran church. this would include 4000 square

feet, for the residential building. this is for the facade of the existing building that has been maintained, with minimal changes. the first is for a couple of handicapped units, in the lobby and a reception area. bible study and a couple of staircases. this would provide men and women's restrooms, and a bible study room. the third floor would consist of a sanctuary for 120, and a conference room. the existing building is three stories tall, and we would be adding on to the extra story. we were discouraged by the planning department to keep the building as low as possible. the existing building can be converted and made to be compatible with the church, and

they may improve the community service for the community. the church provides community services, such as language services and computer education service, for the senior persons. all these programs need privacy and facilities. this lasted for 30 years, at the present location next door. on october 28, 1995, the lutheran church decided to have the church in a separate location because of space and the inadequate space. many residents of san francisco and congregation members are happy with the work that has been done with the local communities and the valuable services that were provided at no cost to the city or other agencies.