alternatives like project friendlyly alternatives but those alternatives are never analyzed properly and i think it can be too late. i want to see the details >> i want to make a professional comments e i r they are a reaction to specific information, however, that particular part of a specific or project specific information has not been shared with this commission to sufficient details. we have discussions the edge of the project area as it has an adjacent overlap with the consumer plan and all we did was

general generally discussed those projects. we just left the door open for the two oppose parties to invite discussions which we would all be involved in but there is no such thing that the e i rs will be the the abdomen - abstract. we should be looking at is projects and i want you to remember this is a appropriation bill here. i want to agree with that

process and i was suggesting that we determine the projects before they went to further you community scoping and i think that's what we agreed to >> commissioners i totally understand the issue. i understand about the additional the difference. the city attorney reminds me of that remember this is a budget item and it doesn't mean we're moving for - i would move forward with this plan

>> dmirgsz there is a motion and a second to approve the budget appropriation. >> commissioner chair wu. that motion passed 5 to 1. can you commissioner take a quick 5 minute break?

>> welcome everyone back to say hearing on january 24th, 2013.

>> at 801 brandon street project the certification of the environmental impact report. the public period for the palin commission to go over the planning comments >> we're going going forward. >> commissioners i need to request that the items on a and b - i operate or on say staff of the a business that we can be

impacted from those two items. >> on the motion for this item - so move the commissioners. so commissioner given that i do want to ask if the commissioners feel okay to move forward with 5 members of the commissioner >> well based upon what i've heard in asking for continuance i don't see a basis, however, in a project of this size i think it would be better to have a full commissioner but i would entertain the remarks from the other commissioners.

>> said agree with what commissioner just presented i think the not going forwards of this project i feel it would be better served to have a full commission. >> is there a motion. >> well with respect to this first item from the city attorney's office but that could result in a continuance or not i don't know. unless there's a compelling argument to continue it i think 5 can make a decision as well as

5 for that matter >> commissioner moore. >> i'm happy to continue. >> i have to admit i am reluctant to go forward because the burden is on us. i believe that a project of this size it's a question of principle should have many commissioners present because we have the largest number of opinions on the subject manner >> commissioner anthony and in that regards to that question that the certification of an e i r which would be brother us in

those important projects we need more votes so it's more important practically is 10 years that have gone into this project. i think it's only fair to the project sponsors and i'm prepared to vote on it today and hear it today but i think there is a sentiment it should be continued because it's a very important project. we need a larger commission to go forward with this. commissioner borden >> here's what i'm not - i mean members of the public probably don't know we're not allowed to

speak outside this quorum. at this point we're public -i'm fine with continuing it and i'm trying to figure out what people want. i don't think we're clear on that. now by letting the audience know on the one hand on moving forward on this item sometime needs to clearly state their opinion and i could weigh in and this is sort of new information and i tend to think that i would rather have president fong here

to hear the item and so there's a full consideration of the commission >> move to continue with the preference not more than 2 weeks if the calendar for the next two weeks are open. >> commissioners we may continue at your pleasure the calendars are light on the fourteenth. i would recommend that because your continuing on item 14. is there any comment on the continuance. did anybody second it? >> sierra club and i just want to say thank you please continue this. this will give me an opportunity

to get ahold of the e i r. i would be thrilled and i hope i am as lucky as i am today and i hope i'm not working so i can come. thank you >> commissioner steve. on behalf of the project desire we request that the time be short as possible. thank you >> i'm not sure there was a second but i think as quickly as possible. >> i think if it hasn't been seconded i would second it. >> it has been seconded. commissioners then on the motion

to continue items 12 and 13 a and b to january 31st. >> i vote i but i don't want to get into another fight about the date being too shorty think the 31st is fine. there was some earlier comment about it having to be two weeks because it's a major project but i'll vote on it >> so move the commissioners that vote passes 5 to zero. commissioners that will place you under items fourteen a, b,

and c x c and v for 1321 mission street request for determination of appliance. >> good afternoon commissioners planning department staff. the question before you is for requests for the projects within the downtown area plan and the downtown planning zoning district. is project proposes the demolition of the old building and a new building containing 3 thousand 3 hundred square feet of ground floor space. it will have student housing

projects. and the remainder will have other units that could be converted to areas for stunt. it would include bicycle parking spaces in the basement. first, i want to touch on the regulation policies. the granting of sections the code permits that the project meets certain finding. the reduction of ground level wind areas. and that it is in your packet. i would be happy to discuss any

of those issues. the project also requires to exceed the - allows more stunt unit for a minimum of - again, i would be happy to discuss the project and the staff requests that this is because of project for student housing. and variances from section 1 to have exposure on the courtyard.

and to allow access to the washburn street and to allow are you e reduction of the areas around the street. it is also worth noting if the principle of law of this project would allow other units. as you recall legislation was passed that it was to be tracked this project. it concludes 1 hundred and 20 units. since they would like to allocate all the units and the

project could be flexly. the students rely on bicycling in the area. and aside from the variance the department has received letters of support and the central market benefit district and the california college of the arts. the department has received other letters. thank you. thank you project sponsor. we have our slide show?

>> you can start it. good afternoon commissioners my name is patrick kennedy and i'm the project sponsor. i'm pleased to be here today, the first qualified student project in san francisco. i've been involved in berkeley and have built 5 hundred units

plus in berkeley. the project in the upper left-hand side of the scene was from a downtown project since world war ii. in 2007 i sold the portfolio of the buildings and decided to develop housing and specifically student housing in san francisco. i did quite a bit of research about the market in san francisco and with the help of the san francisco housing action coalition was able to learn that there about 65 thousand full-time students in san francisco of which only 11 thousand have sponsors in student housing and that