>> for thursday february 28, 2013. please be aware that the commission doesn't tolerate disruption or out burst of any kind want please sound off mobile items. if you want to speak please fill out a card

and state your name for the record. i will take roll at this time. president fong. >> here. >> vice wu. >> here. >> commissioners hillis and sugaya are expected to be late and commissioner moore. >> here. >> first up are items proposed for continuance . item one planning policy on timing implementation is proposed for continuance to march 14, 2013. item two at 194-194(a) sweeny street is proposed for continuance to april powerth, 2013. item three case for 793 south van ness avenue is proposed an indefinite continuance. further on your calendars commissioners. under the regular calendar item 15,

the bicycle parking ordinance is proposed for continuance and item 16 amendments to the planning code sections 604 to provide the copy on a sign shall not be treated as a new sign and continued to march 7. i have a few speaker cards for this one. item 17 for 35 la grande avenue, request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to march 21, 2013. under your 330 calendar commissioners you can not take this item up at this time but i would like to advise you there is a request from the project sponsors for this is

proposed to continuance for april 4, 2013 so what was a long calendar is now short and that's all i have. i have no speaker cards for the continuance. >> okay. is there public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i would like to continue items one, two, and three -- well, one and two to the dates specified. three indefinite continuance, and also continue item number 15 to march 21, item 16 to march 7 and item 17 to march 21. >> second. >> i have a question. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask that item 16 be potentially continued out further out and i have questions that i affect that and i left a

message with the supervisor's office and i mentioned it to ms. rogers. >> the motion is for one week. we can continue to the seven and if the questions aren't answered we can continue it next week. >> we have a motion and a second. >> that's right. >> shall i call that. >> yes. >> on the items proposed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> yes. >> that passes 5-0. next up is the consent calendar. all items are considered to be routine for the planning commission and acted upon a single roll call vote for the commission. there is no separate discussion unless the public or staff requests and the item is removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item for now or a

neurohearing. case four at 225 30th street request for conditional use authorization. case five at 795 folsom street request for conditional use authorization and six for 3221 20th street and request for conditional use authorization and case seven at 975 bryant street. just to clarify item seven for 975 bryant street was considered on february 14, 2013 and following testimony the commission continued the matter to this date. the motion for today under concept is for disapproval. commissioners i think there is interest to pull

a couple of items off of consent. >> is there any public comment for the items on the consent calendar? do you want to come up up? >> yes, i would like to remove item four, the request for conditional use authorization. from the consent calendar please. >> okay. >> and your name? >> my name is michelle carter. >> okay. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> i would also like to remove number four. my name is wendy beam. thank you.

>> hi, i am mark dennis and i would like number four removed from the consent calendar. >> it only takes one person. >> any additional public comment for matters on the consent calendar? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> and i would like to ask that we take off item seven from consent. >> commissioners this is taken off and heard at the beginning of the regular calendar? >> yes. >> commissioner borden. >> i move to approve items five and six on the consent calendar. >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to approve items five and 6a under consent. commissioner

antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> president fong. >> aye. >> that passes six-zero. zoning administrator what say you on 6b. >> item 6b and close the hearing and request the variance. >> commissioners that places you under questions and matters. item eight consideration of matters for draft minutes. >> any comment? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> no, i was pushing for the next item. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve draft minutes for february 14, twawr 13. commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye.

>> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> president fong. >> aye. >> so moved that passes unanimously and places you item nine, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner moore. >> on a very positive note i would like to share with the commission walked by broad walk street and the garden and not everyone was on the commission at that time and it turned out beautiful. you should go by there. it is the example how to do it if you have the right landscape architect and the plans. it looks fantastic. on another note my concerns about case signage continues. i walked by a stunning example at the corner of sutter and montgomery where i am sure we all work to count 22

chase signs on the facade. it's a former location of charles char scrab and a broken firm and happens to be a san francisco firm and with chase moving in there are 22 signs and in every column space there is one sign so as the arcade goes on you have a sign for column spacing and then on the inside between lit signage on the store front you have blue atm's and everything else which comes through it. i would like the department to put on things to look at. it's not what the code

prescribes. last i heard of a wonderful story and veteran's common and the mission street building which is the jeweled building with the roof top garden bar was adapted to accept about 20 -- i'm want sure on the number, veteran vouchers of home units negotiated by former supervisor dufty and i think that is a wonderful and positive thing to share with each other. it's described in the paper today if anyone wants more detail on that. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i read in interest about the story i think the chairperson of yahoo that ask employees not work from home anywhere and in the future go to their campus to work, and being in the line of work i am it's pretty impossible for someone to work from home so i can't

comment on -- unless they're equipped and have the patients go to the homes. i can't comment on tech businesses but seems to me in a creative type of atmosphere you would not as much interaction for employees face-to-face and you can multi-task and network and do a lot of things that aren't easy to did if you're at different locations and the other thing i would suggest being a san francisco resident and having a business here would be as we know many of the employees at these companies are san francisco residents and have to commute to the campuses and i think bee see the results of these with the buss and other things going through the city, but it might be wise for some of the companies, and i think we're seeing more of it to relocate the work force to san francisco

or the whole force and seems to be working for other companies in san francisco and they're figuring out you don't need the campus. you can have people in vertical environments and just be as productive and the campus is a disadvantage because there is no public transportation. everyone is sort of locked in there more or less figurativity during the during of the day and probably not as good as it could be but that is my personal decision. i'm not making a decision for these firms but makes sense wasting an hour for everyone to commute to the campus in san francisco and not everyone but a significant part of the work force could be better sense in more productive ways. >> thank you. any additional commissioner comments, questions? next item please.

>> commissioners that will place you under director's report director's announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. the one announcement i have for today the supplemental budget request will be in front of the budget and finance committee next wednesday at 11:00 a.m.. we will be presenting similar presentations to what we gave you. we have been working with the budget analyst on the details of that and hope to have final agreement before then but we will try to move forward as quickly as possible after the hearing to get the full approval. that's it. >> on item 11 there was no historic preservation hearing.

>> thank you. amy rogers from the planning staff. i have your report on land use related items. this week at the land use committee they followed up on supervisor farrell's legislation for the subdivision code. this was following up on a hearing they had on february 28. since then the members of the board have engaged the public and stakeholder to potentially revise the proposal. one member of the public spoke on this and the item that garnered the most discussion was the western soma ordinances and this commission voted unanimously approval to the board and this commission made several changes and adjusted zoning to allow new

night time uses and housing and this provision was kept by the land use committee. this commission also created a grandfathering provision on this 11th street corridor. this provision was removed this week by the board committee. supervisor kim's office is coordinating negotiations with the property owner and the entertainment committee to potentially change the product from a residential project with one with commercial and office houses. number three, this commission recommending changin zoning for several properties for prop c. no changes were made this week. you changed the benchmark for historic buildings. this was also kept by the board committee and you added an objective and policy to the land use chapter of the plan to acknowledge the need for

continued planning under the central corridor process. again this provision remained intact at the committee and lastly you asked that the board explore a legitimatization program for eastern soma and no program was adopted this week but there was approximately an hour worth of public comment. during the comment supervisors wiener and chiu were concerned about trade off of impact fees and especially for the portion that goes to transit and infrastructure and the rates for the major developments. supervisor wiener expressed concern about grandfathering the residential project at 11th street due to impacts on the intraim industry and all of the supervisors were unclear about

impacts for the potential grandfathering of the academy site as related to further discussions for a development agreement between aau and the city. regarding the last item, th use committee did add this for the project and while at the same time they asked staff for more information and lead them to remove the grandfathering provision next week. this resulted in a new amendment from supervisor wiener to change the impact and affordable housing mechanism for the projects. projects would now pay the full tier two fees and afford tier a affordability instead of tier b. this would provide for increased affordability but not as high levels from the commission and this would ensure no loss of impact fees. these amendments

are still up in the air. the committee may rescind some of the provisions after hearing from our doesn't and asked us to look into three years and capacity and projection for the major development sites within the planned area. they asked for information how the impact fee and affordable housing mechanism has worked so far in the eastern neighborhoods planned area, and lastly they asked for more information from us regarding how the grandfathering issue will or will not impact potential discussions with the academy of art regarding overall development agreement. so we will look into those items and report back to the committee. the committee expressed a desire to move the item out of committee after next monday's hearing if possible, and also at the land use committee this week was a central subway extraction

site and the demolish of the theater and it would allow the rebuild of the project that this commission previously approved. you approved the ordinance in associated conditional use authorization and valentine's day at the land use committee this week there was 30 minute of public comment of the public discussed issues such as the preparation of ceqa documents that cleared this project, cost in disruption of removal of the machine versus leaving it under ground, many of the issues you heard when it was before you. president chiu asked for the staff to clarify the planning issues and staff to confirm that the project would not exceed the height of the existing building and you remember that both the conditional use authorization and the sud require preparation of a detailed roof suey