clerk: commissioners we have a tie vote. vice president olague: should we substitute a motion? misser boarden? commissioner borden: i move to continue the items 2a, b, and c, items 1 and 2, a, b, and c, and d, to august. commissio ner antonini? commissioner antonini: on a motion for continuance, it does require a majority? vice president olague: yes, it does. commissioner antonini: ok, that was my question. clerk: and your motion? commissioner borden: to continue to august 12 clerk second? >> second. clerk: on the motion to continue this item to august 12th,. [ roll call ]

clerk: that's a unanimous vote for continuance of items 1 and it to august 12th. thank you commissioners. commissioners. we are now at commissioners questions and matters. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: this isn't a land use issue but i just wanted to announce the birth of our first grandchild yesterday. [applause] commissioner antonini: her parents chose her name to reflect her irish italian heritage, so she's names fiona, langoria, antonini.

commissio ner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: we have been in receipt of correspondence to extend the comment here on cbmc's draft e.i.r. for 90 days. i would like to support that. i don't think we can -- i don't quite understand how this works, but i think mr. wyco has the authority -- >> he does and you do, although you can't officially vote. clearly if the commissioner sense that's the way you want to go, i can take that message back. clerk: commissioners you can't vote on it, but, again, you can make your comments. if we get a consensus or an understanding from the majority of the members here that that is what the members would like, we will take that back to the e.r.o. >> i just think it makes sense

of thest i.u. which includes four or five campuses especially given the article in the "examiner" with respect to transportation issues, i think it's a fairly complicated e.i.r. as it is. so another 30 days would seem to make sense. and i also have e-mail correspondence from commissioner miguel supporting the extension. >> if i could interject one second. i understand that we have had a lot of requests. i just, for the record, need to say the way the statutes work is that range of the statutes is 30-60 days. and we typically do 45. i understand that. and i understand that in this case, we were actually proposing 70 days, which is the date from yesterday when it was released to whenever the five days after your september 23rd hearing. it has to be five days.

i just want to be clear that i'm a little concerned about precedent. i understand this is a big e.i.r. with multiple sites. but just for the record i think it's important to say that there is -- these kinds of cases are unusual so we would do that only in very unusual cases. >> understood. . commissio ner borden? commissioner borden: i wanted to bring up an item brought to my attention. i work with the neighborhood network and was at the meeting of the middle polk neighborhood and the issues around projects came up and there were a lot of questions about enforcement of conditions and how do people know what conditions are after approved and what is our process of enforcement in the future. i thought it would be nights for our enforcement staff to talk a little bit about if at all we handle conditional use

enforcements and how often we go out on cases like that, just so we can get a sense of what's done in that area. it's a big problem. as we get more projects where we add in conditions to placate or make the situation better for the people experiencing the impact, if the conditions don't mitigate those impacts, then they are useless, so it would be great to have and honest conversation about whether or not the conditions we put on projects, are actually effective. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: two things, last week i mentioned the designs on the facade of the sutter creek block with the hands of syria used to be, where a number of art galleries all of a sudden closed business. it has a very bad effect. it's the corner of taylor and mason and stockton, those

particular two blocks. in contrast, i walked downtown with two are three empty storefronts, which have done an exceptional job to leave it looking very attractive. i wanted to mention that the windows are a moment to stop. the galleria has several done in the interim, local artists, and i would love the department to see what can be done to encourage others who are leaving vacant facaded behind to do something similar. it animates those stretches where there are no stores but there are windows to stop and look. the next thing is ann marie copied all of us on the land use and economic development committee's proposed development to candlestick point and the conditions attached to the board of supervisors. i found all of them very much in

support. many of them expressed here by the commission, and i am glad that while we support it. the conditions are actually very good and require attention. lastly, i was very interested in reading an article about new air quality rules, as they might affect residential buildings within certain distances to freeways. i would like the department to talk to us about that, and inform the public and perhaps have a policy discussion of how we understand residential build inside those areas. we have talked about it before. we have the healthy san francisco plan in place, without really knowing of how to literally aplight that plan to projects in front of us. this is a time to be ahead of the curve instead of this pushed on us. but demonstrate we know how to spread that into our own

deliberations. i would be happy to copy this article to the commissioners and have the department perhaps follow up. i also wanted to support commissioner sugaya suggestion on the be additional 30 days on cpmc and i appreciate the director, indeed being open to that discussion. this is, for us, an extremely difficult e.i.r., partially because it is so much in an another area of expertise. so i appreciate that. thank you. commissio ner antonini? commissioner antonini: a couple of things. i couldn't agree more with commissioner moore about that block of sutter. in fact i made phone calls to the owner of one particular building and asked them to get the graffiti off there and keep it clean and they have a lot of excuses most of the time why it can't be don, so i don't know what our enforcement policies are. it's a contrast to what happens on post street and stores are -- vacants are kept up a lot better.

to the extent it's something that can be don, it would be great if we can ask look into these areas visible to the public. there are lots of people walking downtown and it doesn't reflect well on the city if we see the condition of these buildings. in regards to the emissions article in the "san francisco business times" if i am not mistaken, i am curious about that, too. i know we have a series of projects, and maybe even one today, but it's just a question of, is it necessarily freeways? i think it's near a certain level of emissions, and you put it in and where is that level and this and that. and finally, in terms of the extension, i -- there's no one here from the project to speak to that. i would probably go along what the director has -- the staff has suggested as far as the amount of time for the comment period which i believe were 70

days. is that it now, or has it been -- >> it has to be at least 5 days after the commission hearing which is scheduled for september 23rd and that amounts to 70 days from the release date. commissioner antonini: i guess i would be more comfortable before taking a position, there are occasionally situations where, of course, as we know, when we extend the period of time, we have to extend, then, the time for comment is and responses so it pushes everything further and further ahead, whether there are any time table problems or thicks that go on. weed are looking at something that's going to be a long-term project. even so, if there's anything critical about that particular extension, then i would like to know about it. if there isn't and project sponsor is in agreement with it, i am ok with it. but it would seem as though staff has suggested a certain amount of time that i think would be adequate. commissio ner lee?

commissioner lee: one, i agree with commissioner moore, but we should also look at kerney street. if you walk from broadway to market there are about 26 vacant sites, and actually kerney is pretty bad off. it's not just dirty but looks bad, compared to parts of union square. regarding commissioner borden's concerns about violations. all along lower to middle polk street there's numerous violations, sign violations, music in the evening violations, a whole bunch of violations, but it's just not there but throughout most of the city. you talk about violations, we have a lot of illegal housing units here. eight years ago when i started on this i wanted to press the commission to legalize all the illegal housing units we have here. but no one, the board of supervisors doesn't want to pick it up. you want to talk about violations and fire and health

safety during an earthquake, the one thing the city should tackle are these illegal units. that has the most impact, to the city, for human health and lives, especially during an earthquake. following up yesterday, it tweaked me, i asked the staff for this, that the term reserve bernanke says we are in an unusual unisn'tty in the economy, so i would like the staff after the budget is don, approved the next week or so, to brief us regarding last year's revenues, and next year's budget, because it should be finalized by next week. and then any forecasting of projects with revenues that you think that we haven't dealt with in the next six months. and i don't think the city also understands this with our budget is that state budgets,

19.1 billion in deficit, they haven't balanced it, we may see another issue with the city's budget. so i think it's good for a planning commission. we had a briefing from you, and your thoughts so the general public can get a sense without including the state budget cuts because we don't know what they are going to be. finally regarding cpmc, it's a complicated o.i.r., i have seen parts of it and i think maybe the staff should have a community meeting before we hear it here just to explain it. you are talking about so many different campuses and it's a complicated document especially with transportation, and maybe before they come before us, and we will get an overview but maybe staff who is already prepared for the overview, have a meaning down at planning one day or even at the board of supes, to explain to people so by the time they get here, they will be more informed. >> if i could just respond. we have gotten a lot of requests for that as well.

the concerns raised by the environmental staff over having a meeting is simply one of what becomes the official e.i.r. hearing and comment. what i have asked staff to do is prepare a memo to post on line and to give to neighborhoods to lay out exactly how the e.i.r. is organized and how best to read it as a first step in the process. and i will confer more with the city attorney's office about implications of having a meeting during the comment period. not the meeting that's here at the commission. commissioner lee: also can you give us the latest unemployment rate and then assuming that the federal government doesn't fund jobs now, we have about 3,000 people and sort of on the jobs now, i think it's to the end of september. i think this is borer the public to get a sense of where we are with the economy. vice president olague: i just

wanted to support commissioner borden's request for a hearing with the enforcement staff, so maybe when commissioner miguel gets back, we can look at the schedule because i do get questions sometimes, people wonder what happens to -- what's the conditions that we sometimes impose and how are they enforced and this sort of thing. i think it would be useful. as for cpmc, we should continue to have the discussion on this. but i think what i am more concerned about, really, is the way the entire project is going to be calendared. i know there seems to be this puck to get it don within 2010 but i don't think that's a realistic schedule. i don't know if there's extensions or other things the project sponsor has to look into filing. but if we have the comments and responses on the 23rd of september, it will take -- and staff, i want to thank staff for working heart for putting this e.i.r. out. and then it's about a month or

more before the comments or responses document will be to us. i just don't see -- a lot of this is going to fall, again, during the thanksgiving and christmas break. it's a discussion for later on, but i am more concerned about that. >> the hearing, the draft e.i.r. of september 23rd, it's highly unlikely that the comments would be completed by the end of the year because of the nature of the comments, and the notice period. vice president olague: oh, ok. >> and we have informed cpmc of that, they are aware of that. vice president olague: i met with them this morning and they didn't seem to be aware of the fact that some of us may not want to spend another christmas holiday season, poring through project documents. they didn't seem aware of that. when i asked them about it this morning, they seemed to push back on the idea that we wouldn't be hearing it before the end of this year. >> well, we -- vice president olague: that was

my impression in my conversations with them. that's all and last year we had candlestick so we spent a lot of our holiday season poreing through the documents and i don't want to have to put the public through another cycle of this. and that's it. so -- clerk: commissioners if we can move forward to director's announcements, and a review of past week's events. >> thank you commissioners, because commissioner miguel had also supported the extension on cpmc, i am going to assume that the intent of the commission is to extend it to 90 days since you obviously can't take a vote, but i will relate that back. beyond that, i just wanted to give you a couple of highlights of upcoming calendar items because of the break. and just remind you all, or remind the public that housing element draft e.i.r. hearing is

scheduled for august 5th. the draft e.i.r. hearing for treasure aid land redevelopment plan is scheduled for the morning of august 12th, and the afternoon of august 12th, i have requested a closed session to discuss my evaluation, my performance evaluation in which the commissioners are -- should do on an annual basis. the september 16th calendar, which is the calendar that was to be the first after your break is actually quite full with small projects. there's quite a large number of projects, and cpmc, we are clearing that calendar on the 23rd. and the cpmc condition the sole item on that calendar for the direct e.i.r. hearing and in october we will come back to you with information and specific questions for the academy of arts university which you had requested the last time. just as an update. and regarding the housing

element, sara dennis and i have had several meetings with various groups to talk about the latest draft. there is some back and forth going on between various organizations who have differing points of view on the latest draft of the housing element. this is san francisco, after all, so we will -- the draft language we put out is what you will hear on august 5th as part of the e.i.r. and after that, we will be taking comments and tweaking the final language before the final element comes back to you. vice president olague: great. thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: director, i know we discontinued that item from the 2nd to the 12th. i assume the calendar will accommodate that addition to what was -- >> note a problem. commissioner antonini: ok. we do have a hearing on incident 2nd. i know we put something specifically on the 2nd.

>> we do not 6 a full commission that day, so the commissioners ever asked that the larger projects not be calendared that day. commissioner antonini: ok. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, ann marie rogers here to give you a report on this week's activities at the board of supervisors. the land use committee heard a couple of ordinances. the first is interim control imposing a conditional use authorization of a childcare facility of 13 or more children. maxwell and chu signed on in committee. this was approved to the full board. before the committee was one capital avenue. this was a map change that would rezone a large lot from public

to rh-1. this commission reviewed it on may 13th of this year when you recommended approval and also recommended the pud for the site. the project would break up into 120 lots into single family townhouses, this week the board recommended approval -- i am sorry, the committee recommended approval to the full board. at the full board we had a couple of our ordinances. each of these would make four amendments separately. the first was to update the fees for cost recovery. this would, as i said, do four thing is. one, it would -- i am sorry, let me grab the environmental review piece, first, this would increase the fees about 2% and an additional 2% for cost recovery and change the timing of e.i.r. payments, and add a new fee of mitigation and approval monitoring and clarify

phase collection and refunds don by other agencies. for the planning code amendment, it would make the 2%, about 2% adjustments, except that the 2% adjustment would not apply to small projects for the cost recovery. so -- but the full 4% would apply to larger projects. it would also add a new fee for conditional use authorizations for wireless telecommunications facilities and increase the e.i.r. facilities. you heard both of these ordinances on june 24th and you recommended approval of modifications, this week the board did approve the ordinance with your modifications on first reading. there was a proposal by commissioner sugaya for the california pacific medicine call center to a minute of 90 days

and conduct a minimum of two hearings on the e.i.r. report because of the project's exceptional size and i think those are the primary issues. i didn't get a report from the board of appeals, so that concludes my report today. >> commissioner lee? >> do we have one page that lasts all the fees on the website? >> we have a fee sheet. >> but if you go to the home page, it just says fees? >> yes. commissioner antoni commissioner antonini commissioner antonini: a question on the child care legislation being proposed n if they are private organizations, i'm not sure fit's public or private or which it's speaking to, but were it private, it would seem to me there are lots of factors that might enter into decision as to how large your operation should be that might be business

decisions that would not really be something under the control of the project sponsor. i'm not quite sure about that. maybe you could get back to me or answer or i may be misunderstanding this -- >> and it would apply to public or private if they had more than 13 children. and they have to get a different se sert certification from the state and we're working to get a list of all those potential addresses that could be subject to this requirement. and as an interim control, of course, we don't get an opportunity to weigh in at the commission, but there will be permanent control following this up and we can make recommended modifications or changes at that time. commissioner antonini: that wouldn't be on the calendar necessarily. >> it hasn't been drafted yet. commissioner antonini: i would like to see more of that and try to understand obviously what we all want to see as much child care as possible always there, but it may be that it seems like sort of going the opposition

direction and usually we give conditional uses when something begins or something enlarges something and this is a reduction which may be out of the control of the owner of the particular facility. >> yes. you may be familiar with we require conditional use authorization for the closure of gas stations and there are difficulties with that. commissioner antonini: sure. thank you. >> the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and the only item that i think that would be of note would be the certificate of appropriateness for rebuilding the carriage house and i have to report that it was -- we only had six members and it was a split vote, so the commission will continue that item until we have a full commission. no decision was made. with that, commissioners, we can go forward to your consent

calendar. item 7 is the consent calendar considered to be routine and would be acted on by a single roll call vote. there is no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff requests, and in that event that matter would be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a scheduled item at this or a future hearing. let me call it into the record if you don't mind. the item is item 7, case 2010.0183c for 601 clayton street. it is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow the installation of an automatic teller machine, walk-up facility, without providing a 3-foot setback from the front property line of an existing full-service restaurant/bar doing business as hobson's choice located in the haight street district. commissioners, i have no speaker

cards for this item. and unless one of you or the public or staff pulls it off consent, the matter is before you. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to pull the item off consent. and i would like to ask why do we have rules which stipulate that a.t.m.'s are setback? i believe in the city -- >> we're going to be hearing the entire project now. the staff can begin the presentation now. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission. the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization under section 45.2, 03 and 7.90.140 to install an automatic teller machine without the 3-foot setback from the property line of a

restaurant/bar hobson's choice. the proposed atm walk-up facility will be 1'8" in width and 2'8" in height and 2'5" in depth and would be located 2'5" above the sidewalk. the proposed a.t.m. walk-up facility would be open for operation 24 hours a day and not affiliated with any financial institution. as far as issues of consideration, the proposed a.t.m. walk-up facility will replace a facility that was installed approximately 10 years ago and with the permit which has been removed. and the project sponsor had remove it to abate a violation sent by this planning department. as far as the project sponsor has conducted a site survey of the existing a.t.m. walk-up

facilities and indicated there is only one local bank and a few a.t.m.'s and the proposed a.t.m. will be one of two that will be open 24 hours a day within the haight street general area. also, as far as some issues and considerations the project sponsor has indicated there are considerations of why the a.t.m. walk-up facility wasn't set back initially because they believed that it would have a more significant impact of altering the existing building's facade because of structural and cost consideration and, for example, they thought it might be easier from my understanding if they chose to repair and repatch the side wall. and anything tos that, the project's staff -- and in addition to that, the project staff indicated that the property owner preferred not to set the a.t.m. back in because of some of those reasons.