[chime] >> you can reach out to them either collectively or through me. it is up to them if they will respond. they're not obligated to do so. president olague: it is on the calendar next week. >> madame president, i am here with a very brief request today. the community vision of the northeast waterfront, i think you all got copies. the organizations have been talking at through hope this but our real interest is to work with you, the staff and other things that can be done right away.

america's cup connecting the waterfront, what i like to request is that you calendar a brief presentation to the commission not so much to go through this, but to focus on very specific implementation strategies. one is parking. and if i can put this on the overhead projector. you're a member may remember these maps. and how efficiently it is being used. since the plan came out, we have talked to a number of honors that were excited about working with us and with you. and some of the new things that are coming out to find and use parking more efficiently. this also dovetails with similar recommendations that are in your fishermans wharf plan. when we talk to the parking garage owners, they say it is important to have that with the

meetings. another issue is the washington street activation that you talked about. it is particularly the block on the north side between maritime plaza and golden gate. we want to get things right away on the end of the bloc and do some food trucks. like the things you're doing at the civic center and really get people excited about this. if there is a place where you can get affordable food. again, we think that is very doable very quickly. you want to talk of restoring the connections that don't exist. and also the things that allow people to reduce the complex. the focus of this discussion would be really on a few pilot projects that would excite and

gave the city. there would be ones where there are broad consensus on. we would not be discussing the contentious issues that came up in either of those discussions. what we have to offer as a lot of community support for these kinds of programs, and show people what we can do between now and then. >> i hope it is public comment, general public comment. president olague: provided it is not on the agenda, you can talk about it. >> one of the questions i have -- i am betty foote. for mr. sanchez, i requested the

possibility of wide variances are not separated from environmentalists. from a normal citizen to a normal resident, the boundaries are blurred. i think would be clearer to us to be able to speak to building issues in one side of our mind and environmental issues on the other. but to me, personally, they seem to blur. if i am not clear, please be gentle with me. this is a question. the other thing is quite discouraging since i have been working so hard to understand and neighborhood groups. how the neighborhood process works, how the planner's work. how we keep up with the street

from a citizens' standpoint. my brain has trouble keeping up with that. i went to planning a couple days ago and found that there was a letter written as if you had already made a decision on a project that is very important to us. it was written in the past tense as if you are in the hospital but already dead. it seemed like this was just a rubber stamp. i just wanted to know what that does to the heart and spirit of the citizen. i wish you would wait until you hear us. the other thing is, site visits in the file, to me, from a 24-7 president standpoint, a site visit is very light by a person in the environmental impact

relman. it says there could be no significant effect, and we have to say as residents, it could not be in the nisei it could. i think it is not very comprehensive. from our standpoint, i think maybe something could be done on the site visit. how do you know, how does the left hand know what the right hand is doing as far as cumulative decisions that affect transportation and quality of life. last week, a decision was made. today there will be a decision made on the project. there is the fisherman's wharf public realm plan. [chime] president olague: think you.

>> i wanted to talk about the transition to paperless records in the department issues that haven't even thought very well through. i am not sure when, but a couple years ago, the department transition to keeping as many records as possible electronically and not printing them out in the files. the general public hasn't been really cold. i am a pretty sophisticated general public. and if i am having problems understanding what this means, and are a lot of people that don't. if you send the staff, i went through a case dockets my case that i have with the commission today and not next week. i had an involved discussion

with the staff on a particular issue. and when i pulled the file, it wasn't in there at all. how come this issue isn't even in the file? the answer was, i sent an e- mail. i pulled it out, and sure enough, and i had a lengthy discussion with a particularly germane issue that was not in the file because i have been told if you want to have it in the record, you must print it out in the mail at or delivered to the department. the records for cases that happen in the past, people that pulled them up and did not have whiles anymore. they have sketchy documents. there is so much in the e-mail that doesn't wind up in the file after a case is approved. someone coming up to the file five years from now, a staff

person trying to find it. a member of the public will not have any of the things that were sent through e-mail. the planning department doesn't give any notice that the files on a case are electronic. when you go down and fill out the record form, it doesn't say. you must request the electronic records. if you wait until the case report comes out a week in advance in the ask to go to the file, you'll not have any electronic records. i understand the electronic files have got an overwhelming. when you had to type a letter out, he did not send a letter saying thank you for accepting my phone call. now people do bizarre things. you have one thing of substance and maybe 10 the irrelevant females because people feel they need to say thank you for talking to me or whatever.

the planning department has to go through a process. every notice that you give when someone close the case has started. if you don't put it in writing, it is not on the record. president olague: any additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> you're beginning your regular calendar. commissioners, you are on item number seven. [talking over each other. ]

>> i just wanted to note that this case has an associated variants as well. any action on the environmental review will have to come first. >> good afternoon, president olague. >> would you like me to call 7 and 8? >> yes, please. >> we've called item 7, next is item 8. >> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. the item before you is an appeal for the preliminary declaration for the proposed development at 1255 columbus avenue, case number 2008. to analyze the potential impact

of approximately 16,000 square feet, built in 1954, and construction of the mixed use building. the proposed new building will include residential units, 6200 square feet. the proposed parking garage would be accessed from columbus avenue. we sent a package containing an executive summary, appeal letter, and planning department responses. the issues raised include traffic, transit, a pedestrian and parking impact as well as neighborhood compatibility and impacts to resources. the planning department's response is that it is adequate for the following reasons. it does address traffic impact

and pedestrian impact. it discusses the parking impact resulting in the proposed project while noting the parking is not considered an impact. and it addresses the product -- a project's compatibility -. we do not advocate the approval or disapproval of them describe it. they prepared, analyze the environmental effects and determined that it would not result in significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated. the appeal letter does not raise new physical environmental issues, nor does it provide a substantial evidence for a finding of a significant environmental impact.

the issues raised about the concern and the variances for the commercial of street parking requirement. we find that these communications and not raise issues sufficiently analyzed. no substantial evidence of the significant environmental affect would warrant preparation. staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the motion to uphold the position in your packets contain a draft motion to those effects. should the commission choose to uphold it, the zoning the administrator will take an action on this seceded variances for this project. this concludes my presentation. he is with me here today. >> before you go forward, madam

president, would you like to hear her on the variance? >> it will briefly highlight the variance request. >> in the first relates to the quantity of commercial parking. 13 spaces would be required for off-street parking spaces for the ground-floor retail uses. no commercial parking spaces are being provided. the second is for rear yard. it is irregularly shaped. in strictly provides a code complying rear yard at the rear of the property and would be somewhat difficult by definition. as an alternative, the project

sponsor has proposed a series of interior courtyards situated at the center of the property. the third variant being requested is for columbus avenue. it would create a 10-foot wide curb cuts. this variance is necessary because of somewhat recent legislation that added this portion of columbus avenue to the list of streets where the cuts are prohibited. and that this will be new construction, the pre-existing rights or pre-existing curb cut, the rights to utilize those are extinguished. that is being requested. that is the summary that is being requested. president olague: can we hear from the appellant at this time?

the appellant is who we hear from at this time. >> is the appellant year for the appeal? if you appeal, then yes. >> i am appealing the environmental, right? i of told to of the three variances. i uphold and agree with the variances, we talked to the residence and you will know why. i would very much like to defer that if you would like. if you can vote against it, that would be great. if you would like to know why, i can really give you have in the street reasons if you would speak for the part of it.

the other part is finished. >> if you are appealing the preliminary negative declaration, now is your opportunity to present why you are appealing it. we're looking for your case as to why you feel the entire environmental impact report is necessary. >> i stand before you allow the appealing to your higher sense of right. i ask each of you -- however, i don't know if you could approve it and have one exception for a focused traffic study. i know if that is possible, but that is our only problem, the traffic study. the intersection is dangerous. you have the package in front of you. i really would like a chance to defer this so we can talk with the developers and the possibility of removing the

request of providing affordable residential housing in the place of commercial. we would not have any variance requests. it would provide affordable housing. there is a great need for seniors, handicapped, and the young star outs. we would not have war zones over parking. it would help the intersection. i don't want to comment bitch and complain. i would like to provide solutions to talk about. should i a wait until we come back to variance? i am blurring the two. president olague: it relates to both. >> the reason we don't have a bunch of neighborhood groups here, they don't really understand it. i told them i would speak to the

issue and try to understand it and bring it back to them. if worse comes to worse, we can go to a d.r. president olague: at some point, i would suggest a member of the department's staff sit down with you and explain to you the process. it can be overwhelming and confusing. >> this is the reason i am alone here. there must be a nonprofit out that that helps. i don't know. anyway, i am speaking on behalf of the senior center. i am very active in the neighborhood. we just have a problem of cumulative of fact. the decision last week creates more who were buses coming out

our street because of restricted streets in north beach. it is political. it creates north point as the gateway for digital signs showing where tourists can park. in conjunction with that, we have a fax from the e-line and the f line. there are so many big books to read. the other thing is america's cup coming. we have the manhole over a tunnel that gets hammered by these large trucks. i wish you could lease an apartment that i tried direct there for years. i cannot keep tenants for more than one year. every three minutes, you think it is an earthquake. it is a problem. i want you to feel that as we feel it.

>> when i got this, i read it and said there would be problems with this based on my knowledge of the area and based on the whole in the planning cut. the planning cut has over the past 30 years developed notice procedures for products in our zone. those notice procedures give people early warning and the opportunity to become engaged in talks to staff. that was the first notice. i have no idea. but the planning department has a responsibility to update its

own code. we have a code system that has a whole. there are no notices for anything. these are the areas at the northern end in the eastern end of district 3. it is an intense area. it is an intense area commercially. people live there. the planning department has a responsibility to plow through this and allow people to get involved before your told of a $500 and you have 20 days to do it. i am really sympathetic to this woman and her frustration. the planning department should immediately come back to you next week with a notice procedure.

you can do it on an interim basis, when you have got to cure it. this should not be allowed to happen. the needs to be broader community discussion. this is telegraph hill, north beach. it deserves better. i am not involving anything except i read it and i said, all my god. i thought there would be some issues is looking at the map. i don't live there. the staff has got to pay attention to areas that are really congested and dense. president olague: any additional public comment on this item? public comment is closed.

did you want to speak on this item? it is just public comment. you get three minutes. >> i am the public sponsor for what we call russian hill corners. i applaud the staff and the planning department for working with us to meld this very unique site into something that works for all of us. it is a phenomenal location that is extremely important to the city. and to north beach, the main bus stop, the whole works. right now, it is an office building. when of 20 or 30 parking spaces. a dozen cars back out through a bus spot on to columbus avenue. we were talking earlier about

taking approximately 60 cuts, turning it into 10 feet and moving it away. the staff wanted us to add the more than standard amount of commercial because they want to have a presence in the neighborhood he. they want the pedestrians to be able to walk on this side and not be walking past the parking lot where people are living and unfortunately doing wrong things. the switch from this building, as a commercial, it will reduce traffic in the area and reduce the amount of traffic coming and going from the property. this has also been put into the traffic study. what has been in process for two years, we believe that it is very significant.

and when that is a concern that the neighbors you have heard state. less traffic, more safety for pedestrians, we are within the zoning code. we have not asked for eighth extra unit or anything to that effect. we have parking so nobody sees it. and instead of a big parking lot, it is 90% going to be retail commercial and attractive. we started working with our neighbors in the 100 seats from our project over four years ago having discussions about the plan and how we should proceed. they very much approved of our project. we made changes for them, including the fact that the residential side of columbus, we change it to look like vertical

townhouses that kind of mass to the residential field of the street. and on the other side of the street, we had to match in the commercial field, the marriott hotel, and keep our bolted down and get beat building to look appropriate and attractive. if you look at the plans, that is what we have done. he worked with the planning department. it has been a very long road with a lot of tough times as you know, out there. we like to have a resolution from you today. president olague: is there any additional public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> there has always been a certain amount of confusion

between the environmental issues and projects themselves. it becomes a little clouded. we are considering here is whether or not the preliminary mitigated declaration is adequate in analyzing the environmental impacts. this comes in different categories. if there is virtually no environmental impact where they are below a level where any consideration has categorically example, certain projects are exempt from environmental analysis. others can be dealt with in this form. we will deal with whether this adequately analyzes the impact. it is, of course, much larger and adds a lot to the process. you are only undertaken with is warranted. th