director for public works who oversaw the construction and deputy director for operations who now will be responsible for maintaining this beautiful landscape. if he doesn't do so the mayor will remind him. finally, i want to acknowledge the guy who led the team that designed this whole project, an outstanding project. a lot of effort went in to getting community consensus, to working out the technical details and coming out with a beautiful project. landscape architect john dennis. the designers. then last but most the project manager for valencia street and the great streets program within d.p.w. or project manager, chris. phenomenal job on this project. with that, we want to thank you for coming today to celebrate valencia street and the better streets plan. we would be happy to take

questions if anybody has them for the mayor or anybody else. >> or we could do the ribbon cutting. >> on to the ribbon cutting. >> we will go five, four, three, two, one. five, four, three, two, one. [cheers and applause] >> walk your streets. there you go.

vice president olague: we are having technical difficulty folks, so i apologize, once we resolve it, we will start the meeting.

clerk: good afternoon, this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday, july 22nd, 2010. prior to taking roll, let me

just make a couple of announcements. we ask that it's very important that you not engage in secondary discussions while in this room. if you feel the need to do so, go outside with those discussions. they become extremely disruptive to the process, the whispers, all of that, take them outside, please. also turn off your cell phones, your pagers, any electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. the commission will not tolerate disruptions of any sort including clapping, yelling, cheering, speaking out of order, etc. roll call -- [ roll call ] clerk: and congratulations commissioners moore and suggest guy ya on your reappointment and swearing in today. [ roll call ] clerk: president miguel is absent today commissioners,

first item on calendar, items fortunance, item 1, 2006.1006e for 222 2nd street, items 2a, b, c, and d, companion cases, proposed for continuance, august 5th, item 3, for 3281 16th street, this project has been withdrawn and the matter is no longer before the commission for any consideration. further on the calendar, commissioners case 2010.0130 it, item 17, upper unit, please note that the discretionary review for this item has been withdrawn

and the matter is no longer before you for any type of consideration. for the benefit of the public, please note there have been some questions, if necessary, to take a couple of items, to hear a couple of items later on the calendar, that would be item 12' and b, if necessary to move those items to the calendar. that means items 14, 15, and 16 would move up and be considered following item 11. vice president olague: that is collect. clerk: with that, commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on calendar being proposed for continuance or that has been withdrawn. vice president olague: to open it up for pup comment on items proposed for continuance.

>> sue hester, attorney for the 246 2nd street homeowners association. the president of the association had intended to address you, but he has a sick child and asked me to come in his stead. the homeowners association is a condo building one block away from this building. it is the project that people most directly affected by this project. we are asking for a one-week continuance from the 5th to the 12th. when the first -- there were extensive comments from the homeowners on the d.e.i.r. those of you remember it, it was a knotty, passive case. these people are involved. they have been watching to find out when the hearing was and at the end of june the hearing was announced for the 2nd.

it was announced in the paper and on posters on site and notices were issued. people made then their vacation arrangements. they held off until the hearing was on. two different units, including mr. dagopia, his family, made -- paid reservations to visit his family, costs a lot of money, nonrefundable tickets, $5,000, he is asking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of another tenant who also did the same thing, that it be continued one week, so he doesn't have to choose between representing the homeowners association and taking a vacation with his family. it's a reasonable request. one week. before the 22nd was set, the planning staff checked with the developer, they agreed to the

date and then the developer found out that mr. miguel would not be here and he asked for the change. at no point was anybody else consulted about the date. we find out about these things by noticed and we found out it was proposed to a date that is really disruptive to the plans for the homeowners association. a one-week continuance for the interest of fairness so that people do not have to lose their vacations and all their money. we are not asking to be continued to october, just for one week. mr. julius knows this request has been made and he has rejected it already so i am interested in hearing his rationale. but in the interest of fairness, when staff does negotiations with one side and doesn't even talk to the other side before dates are set, it's not really fair. thank you.

>> commissioners, andrew ju in nius, on behalf of the project sponsor, we are asking you to continue the dates august 5th as set forth in the calendar. there is certainly more than enough time to prepare for this hearing. the seek request materials have already been out, you have had them for two weeks, miss hester's clients have had them for two weeks and they will have another two weeks. packets are going to you today fully two weeks in front of the hearing that we are hoping to have on august 5th. you know, i have a tough time believing that miss hester also didn't inform her clients that sometimes hearing dates change. in this case it is changing because our architects are not available today. that's the reason. we couldn't go forward with the hearing on the 22nd because

our team was not going to be ready. we were given the date by staff. we've been requesting the earliest possible date since last year, and the earliest we could get was the 22nd. it turned out our team could not be prepared on the 22nd. that is the basis of our request. our team will be available on the 25th and we want to present the case to you then. you know, our team has already changed its plans several times to try to get this hearing to happen as quickly as possible. the 5th is where we have taken our plans, everybody on our side has scheduled this hearing. the idea that miss hester didn't know until -- i don't know when she knew that we made the question for the hearing change. we made the question two weeks ago, the minute we found out our team wouldn't be ready. i cannot believe that she didn't

have that request. it's been two weeks. she never contacted me. i haven't contacted here, her clients have refused to communicate with us. we would just like to go forward on the 5th, thank you. >> hi, i am carl shannon. i reiterate -- >> speak into the mic. >> sorry, this is carl shannon, i reiterate that we are trying to reschedule to make sure tom pfeiffer is here, and we are trying to bring great architects to san francisco to have great buildings. he's in des moines today with another client i could not trump and mr. mannis is in philadelphia. ply apologies, but august 5th would be great in terms of having them both. vice president olague: any additional public comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, this item is

closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i was going to move items 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d to august 5th. clerk: item 3 is withdrawn. vice president olague: well i am going to speak against the motion because i think that the neighborhood association is making a modest request. that isn't a lot. today it was moved to accommodate the project sponsor. when people make plans for their summer vacations, they are not always, you know, people usually buy tickets in advance, so it's possible that he purchased thosing tickets before he knew of this continuance to the 12th. and i know that mr. junius raised the issue of reviewing

materials in time to review materials. but that wasn't the point i heard miss lester make, but it was to accommodate the neighborhood association who showed out in numbers at the draft e.i.r. hearings. i think it's critical that people in the neighborhood and their needs are taken into consideration and i don't believe that request of an additional being, given that it's summer and people tend to take family vacations in summer, in august, that it's an unreasonable request to postpone for one week. so i think project sponsor's needs are obviously important, but so are the neighborhood's needs. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask staff questions on this. so originally, this was noticed for today, and it's been represented by, i mean, the project sponsor that about two weeks ago, they asked you for the continuance, is that correct? >> correct, a little over two

weeks. commissioner antonini: , ok, two and a half weeks ago, did you inform the dir requesters of that continuance? >> this is technically not a dr case. commissioner antonini: , yeah, i misspoke. >> so i informed miss lester of the continuance when she contacted me, i forget the date that exactly occurred. commissioner antonini: so that kind of answers my questions as to, you know, if these reservations were made, they were made fairly quickly. but i would probably be in favor of the motion as stated, thanks. commissio ner moore? commissioner moore: here we go, when these types of issues come up, i feel i need to sit between two chairs. i believe there is a certain precedent of animosity between both parties, and i would

suggest if there have neutral date in which beet can agree, i am prepared to entertain that. but i do not want to be dragged into a disagreement that she said and it was announced. i don't want to go there. i don't believe we sit here for resolving that issue. but if there are two parties that have an issue that they don't agree on, they should come to consensus before education or back, let them come back with a date that works for both of them. vice president olague: we have to make a decision today. well, go ahead. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: maybe i could ask the project sponsor that this architect that you have that couldn't be here today, would the 12th be possible? i mean, if that is the issue that is the difference for you. >> again, it's carl shannon,

he's from new york, he has flown out several times to complete with john and his staff. he has not confirmed his available on the 12th. i did ask him for other dates. he can't be here next thursday. he can be here the 5th. i am not aware of the 12th. we have a whole bunch of people on our side we are trying to coordinate. we are also quite frankly in very preliminary discussions with a tenant and we would hope to be back in front of the epa at some point if they re-open their search, so losing time is not a material thing in terms of being able to tenant the building,. commissioner borden: we can agree one week is not a big hardship. >> assuming epa doesn't make the decision in that week to come back. they have gone back and forth. i don't know when that decision will be made. it would be forthcoming shortly. it could happen between now and the 5th, between the 5th and

the 12th, it could happen after the 12th. if we are not an approved project when they issue that request, we don't stand a reasonable chance of being considered for it. commissio ner moore? commissioner moore: , isn't it enthusiasm that your architect of record, in the processes that go on in this room, why do we need the architects to be here. the architect of record -- it's not as much about the building as it is about approving the eir. >> both. >> that leads and that is the one on which you will most testimony? >> in terms of the technical

approvals, i can say absolutely, mr. mannis can speak very eloquently to the technical approvals and what is required, probably more eloquently than tom pfeiffer can. we are encouraged by the planning department to bring great architects to san francisco and to build great projects, to do kpr and 555. this is tom pfeiffer's day in the sun this san francisco. i would think you would want him here. >> he's the design architect, so typically we like to have the person who designed the building here for the approval. we recognize they are the architect of record but he is the actual designer of the building. commissio ner lee? commissioner lee: i think we should keep the 5th. we can always continue after the 5th. i mean, if the information is there.

the e.i.r. has been around for five weeks. this project has been around for quite sometime. if we need to continue after the 5th, we will continue it. commissio ner borden? commissioner borden: i want the architect to be there. and i think it's not unreasonable request. if they are asking for a month or three weeks, run thing, but we are talking about a week. i wish that. clerk: you can continue it to the 5th and move it to the 12th. commissioner antonini: it's probably better to continue it to next week and if we were to find out there was an agreement over the architect or some reason why parties did agree to the next week, that's possible,

but you can't go the other direction, but you can't go forward and not backward. vice president olague: i think the key point here for me is mr. pfeiffer is flying in from new york and we do encourage great architecture, this commission has for as long as i can remember. the reality is he's flying in from new york, the neighbors and others aren't flying from anywhere. they will have to live with the impacts of this development in their neighborhood. so i think it's critical we have a balanced discussion here with all parties that are going to be affected. that includes the architect. that includes the project sponsor and that includes people in the neighborhood who live in close proximity to a project that may have some ongoing impacts for them. so it's important to keep that kind of balances conversation when it comes to the project. i don't see any other names up. i will call the question.

clerk: commissioners on the motion to continue items 1 and 2 to the dates proposed on calendar -- [ roll call ] 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 t