>> thursday, may 9, 2013. like to remind everyone that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburst of any kind. please turnoff any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings and when speaking before the commission please do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here.

>> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioner borden is expected to be absent and commissioner antonini is here somewhere. first up, commissioners, are consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2013.0020ce - 6333 geary boulevard is proposed for continuance to june 6, 2013. item 2, case no. 2010.1034c - 4216 california street is proposed for continuance to june 6, 2013. items 3a and b for case nos. 2009.0753cv - 3155 cesar chavez street is proposed for continuance to july 11, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioner moore. >> move to continue items 1 through 3 as noticed. >> second. >> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes usevly 6 to 0 and places you under your consent calendar. all matters here under constituted consent calendar considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 4, case no. 2012.1341c - 2320 sutter street, conditional use authorization. item 5, case no. 2013.0025c - 1946 fillmore street request

for conditional use authorization and item 6, case no. 2012.0231c - 758 divisadero street request for conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards, commissioners. >> is there any public comment on those three item on the consent calendar? my name is doug martin. i'm a resident of 760 divisadero and i'm here in opposition to the plan to place a cell tower on the roof of my building -- >> okay, sir, this is just a request to remove it from the continuance calendar thev if you'd like to speak to the item. if you'd like to remove it from the continuance -- it's being continued again? >> i'm sorry, from the consent calendar. you just request that and we'll take it off the consent calendar and hear it under the regular calendar. okay, i'll come back a little bit later.

>> is there any other additional public comment on the item on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner wu. >> move to approve items 4 and 5. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioners, to approve items 4 and 5 under consent, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commissioner among? thank you, commissioners, that motion passes usevly +6 to -0. and places you under commission matters, consideration of adoption draft minutes for april 25th, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> move to approve draft minutes. >> second.

>> on that motion to approve the draft minutes for april 25th, 2013, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioner, that motion passes usevly. item 8, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have a couple things. first of all, i wanted to report that the secretary search subcommittee continues to meet and is making good progress. we will be meeting again in a couple of weeks and ultimately, once we get down to selection process, the entire commission will be involved obviously in that, but we are doing well on that, i believe. a couple of other things -- is this on, can you hear me now? sorry. >> yeah. >> okay. i went to the friends of city planning event last night. i want to thank them. they always have a wonderful

event. and there was a lot of huge attendance and a lot of jubilation as there should be on the things going on in the city as far as we're seeing projects that were approved over a period of 10 years finally getting built, both housing and commercial, and a lot of interest in san francisco, both for residential and for business. but we have problems, as you're all aware, and i think we can't get to self-congratulatory while things exist. i've talked about homelessness and street people and the fact we're not meeting their needs and it's not helping our residents or tourists or visitors to our city on that issue. and also there was a very good article in the examiner on yesterday. it talks about people under the stairs and basically focuses on the excelsior district in particular where most of the homes are single-family residences, but there are a lot

more than single families living in these homes and there are probably illegal units, probably with kitchens and certainly overcrowding situations. one of the reasons we see all the fires that have occurred and other issues sometimes where there are limits to the number of non-related people that can live in a residence, i think, and other things. and one of the article -- part of the article mentioned that they do have some periodic inspections, but if nobody's home they just pass it over. i would like to see a little more organized plan to inspect even single-family homes. i'm fine with that. i live in a single-family home. i have no problem with somebody coming by and making sure it's in compliance because many of the problems that we have in these areas, such as home prices going up astro no, ma'am li, parking problems have their

origin in the fact a lot more people are living in these structures than they're designed to hold. and many times the owners are not even present there. they're just renting it out to -- making it into a quasi-hotel and it's supposed to be a single-family home. so, i think we need to do some work on that. and finally, there was an article in the chronicle on saturday, and i was mentioned as part of the article had to do with the graffiti problem with particular reference to these stores that are operating at night and weekends and selling graffiti to graffiti vandals. i worked with staff a little bit to try to find out if there's whiz is ~ ways we can close them down or restrict their operations. one is formula retail. obviously none of them come before us for approval in that regard. i also am going to either propose some legislation on my own through the commission, of course. i found out how that can be done, or approach one of the members of the board of

supervisors to look into a restriction on the sales of spray cans. we're all about the environment. we're always banning plastic bags and everything else and nothing can be more polluting than spray paint, especially being used for vandalism. so, you know, that might be something that some supervisors would be interested in. and also i understand the penalties for graffiti vandalism only involve community service. there's no fines involved in that, and many of the vandals are regulars into their 20s and 30s, and many of them have assets that certainly could be tapped to pay for some of the damage they've done. so, i'd like to see something a little tougher in our laws. so, that's one of some of the things i'm working on, and i thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there any additional commissioner comments, questions? okay, next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place

you under department matters. item 9, director's announcements. >> thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. just wanted to mention an event that i think i sent you an announcement about which is an event that i'm moderating next week with an organization called the council of tall buildings and urban habitats, an unusual name. actually an organization that's been around for since the '60s it's based in chicago and there's a group of people trying to start a chapter here in san francisco. they are sponsoring this event that they've asked me to moderate to talk about future density and how to make it livable. and, so, there is a panel discussion. that will take place next tuesday evening at ginsler's offices. and i will, as i said, be moderating that panel. and i think that's it for me today unless there are any questions. thank you. >> item 10, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners, ann marie rodgers planning department staff. this week at the board there were a few items you may be interested in. first on monday at the

lubetionv committee, both ordinances that would address our c-e-q-a procedures and a lot about our local c-e-q-a appeal processes were heard. this includes supervisor wiener's ordinance which was scheduled before the board for potential action as well as supervisor kim's ordinance which is informational because there is still a pending action from the hpc. you'll remember that you considered these ordinances and to date you recommended approval of supervisor wiener's ordinance with two modifications which he has accommodated and for supervisor kim's ordinance you recommended approval of certain portions, disapproval of certain portions and you had the four additional informational item you wanted us to look into. so, this week we reported to the board that we will be producing additional memo before supervisor kim's ordinance is called for action that will address the four areas you asked us to look into. this week at the committee several amendmentses were made, in fact 8 amendments.

the majority of them were proposed by supervisor chiu, and i'll note the other ones that were not proposed by him. the first amendment that was made was to clarify that our department should identify the approval action for ceqa decision and we should post this information on our website. the second would provide the department's other than us who are doing exemptions shall notify our department and provide the planning department with copies of exemptions so that we may post them on our website. number three, it clarified if an exempted project is modified, an additional c-e-q-a decision would be required if the project exceeds the scope of the original project. and that would be -- it was clarified that exceeding the scope would mean if any aspect that is regulated upped the planning code changes or if a new use is added. ~ under number 4, supervisor chiu added amendment that our department

provide notice when project modification is sufficiently minor that it would not trigger new c-e-q-a, so, we would need to notice that. ~ on our website. and number 5, provide that planning is not required to file a notice of termination unless the project sponsor pays the fee that would enable that notification. number 6, -- and that last one was amended by supervisor wiener. number 6 would provide that once the clerk has scheduled an appeal for hearing, all other city bodies should not take action or make approval. and number 7 was an amendment that was proposed by the clerk and accepted by the committee. this would establish procedures for the clerk of the board and for our department for these appeals. it would require that the planning department advise the clerk within three working days of a filed appeal as to whether or not that appeal is timely. and then it would give the clerk 7 days from the filing of the appeal date to determine if the appeal complies with the requirements because there are

additional requirements besides being timely. and whether it is timely. the clerk would need to provide that notification to the public within 7 days. and then lastly, there was language that would require the clerk of the board to schedule the appeal hearing no less than 30 days after filing and no more than 45 days after the appeal is filed. so, supervisor chiu moved to amend the ordinance as i just described it and supervisor wiener seconded that motion. supervisor kim then asked that the item be continued for two weeks so that her ordinance could also be considered at the same time. board president chiu stated that he is considering her ideas that have been proposed in her ordinance and believes that a one-week continuance of supervisor wiener's ordinance is sufficient. and with that, the committee continues supervisor wiener's ordinance with these amendments to next week. so, it will be back at lubetionv on this coming monday. and supervisor kim's ordinance is expected to be heard in two weeks after the hpc considers it next week.

so, that was the primary action at the lubetionv committee. at the full board on tuesday, there was an appeal of the e-i-r for 7 06 mission street which is also known as the mexican museum. ~ this commission certified the e-i-r for the project on march 21st, and three appeals were filed. the appeals were from lipy gaffney wagoner [speaker not understood]. also an appeal filed by grant holley group on behalf of todd co-in the yerba buena neighborhood coalition and the last was filed by lippe gaff knee wagoner by the friends of yerba buena and five individuals. so, this project as you are well familiar would be a 550 foot residential tower. [speaker not understood]. up to 215 residential units and ground floor retail and restaurant. the existing jessie square garage would be reconfigured for additional parking.

of the 470 parking spaces, 210 remain publicly available. so, the arguments that were presented were primarily this. the appellants disagree with the department the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to the pedestrian conditions in the area. appellants state this should have been identified in the e-i-r with appropriate mitigation measures. the appellants also believe that the e-i-r was inadequate in the following areas. traffic, including pedestrian traffic and circulation, safe shadow on city parks, mitigation measures and alternatives with respect to shadows, historic resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and recreation. at the board hearing staff explained that the e-i-r appeal letters raised a number of issues that were either the same or very similar to those already addressed in the e-i-r. at tuesday's hearing the board members themselves focused on the shadow impacts and

pedestrian impacts as well as project alternatives. the proposed project is in supervisor jane kim's district and she led the discussion in questioning. with respect to shadows, supervisors were particularly interested in the basis that we use for determining significance. and they were concerned about the treatment of parks under prop k and non-rec and park properties, how they might be pro textved from shadows. questions were raised with respect to the role of mitigation measures compared to that of alternatives. and staff explained that both measures are intended to address , that is either reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. so, with regards to the projects' considerable contribution to significant shadow impacts, there were two alternatives in the e-i-r that would reduce shadow impacts and these were fully addressed. that's why we argued it was

sufficient. supervisors questioned the financial feasibility of a building that would not shadow union square, and they were really interested in knowing about financial feasibility related to this reduced project. staff replied that that was information regarding financial feasibility of a project, would be provided during the upcoming project entitlements which we know you will be hearing at a joint commission with rec/park. with respect to the pedestrian analysis, the questions about how we do baseline analysis and staff clarified the department's transportation impact analysis look at the baseline conditions of the area. the department believes that using typical baseline conditions result in a more fair assessment of the project impacts. however, the supervisors were concerned regarding this approach for an area that is already experiencing crowded conditions. the supervisors in general expressed support for mexican museum.

supervisors campos and kim requested that the project sponsor continue to work with appellants to address their concerns, particularly these shadow and traffic impacts. the supervisors said that they look forward to hearing more about the project at the time of the project approval. and while supervisor kim had many questions for planning staff, she ultimately agreed with the decision and analysis of the department and the board usevly voted to uphold the final e-i-r from the commission. this week also on tuesday, the upper market zoning amendments passed their second and final read ~ and there were two hearing requests that were introduced this week that i thought you might be interested in. the first by supervisor avalos proposed uses of fund stabilization program to support san francisco homeowners and to preserve affordable housing options, integrate the habitability of the secondary units. supervisor mar requested a hearing to look at how parcels

have spread throughout the city, to and their impact and consider the benefits that they may provide to more chapter requestor ~ corridors. that concludes my report. i have zoning administrator for the board of appeals report that happened last night. first, for 125 crown terrace, the board of appeals upheld this commission's decision to approve the alteration permit. and last night the board denied the appellant's request for rehearing. for 52 34 mission street, the planning commission approved the permit to allow an ncd at this location. on february 14th, the building permit was issued, however, no appeals were filed on the permit issuance. and in april jurisdiction request was filed to reopen the 15-day appeal period. last night again the board unanimously rejected that. there was an appeal of the entertainment's commission of the issuance for place of

entertainment permit live nation america's cup pavilion and last night the board unanimously upheld the entertainment permit. lastly, they considered 349 bank street. this is an appeal of a release of suspension relating to a building permit to legalize a deck. on march 7th the planning commission heard a d-r on this matter and voted unanimously to not take d-r and they upheld your report. that concludes the report. [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner antonini. >> ms. rodgers, thank you for your report. a couple questions. under the c-e-q-a amendments that are being proposed, talked about a new analysis when the environmental impact was found to exceed what had been the project as larger or would have more of an impact than was the case when it was first analyzed. and that's sort of always been the case, i think. i don't see that as being anything new.

>> that's correct. it's now going to be codified in the administrative code if this passes, but that is what our procedure was currently. >> thank you. and on the 7 06, what i'm hearing is the appeal was rejected -- the appellants, there were three appeals. so, now this is on our calendar, i would assume, for the future for a joint session with rec/park. >> that's correct. >> that's the next step. okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner, that will place you under general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes and i do have a couple of speaker cards. >> thank you.

dina adelphia and linda chapman. can we imagine a drug-free community center? when asked the question, she laughed, ashley couldn't. she said, why we put trees or benches here? the drug dealers will just take them and use them. we may wonder, well, who is ashley anyway? ashley is 24 years old and ashley has no teeth. they wouldn't let ashley into the church. stan, stan was in a wheelchair on monday. we think stan, what happened to your leg? we just saw you walking around on friday. are you injured? no, stan is not injured. stan complains that he can't get up, that he's too hungry,