the department that troubles me. the department is doing environmental review all totally invisible. it happens in the negotiations between the developer and the staff. and the project goes through project review, one-sided project review by the developer, and staff assigned to the project residential design sheet. my point is these are all difficult sites. these are not sunset grid where you know what you are getting or richmond district. these are hilly sites in some cases with major, major, major access problems for public safety. and the developer and the staff go back and forth, back and

forth, and they basically push away anyone who gets wind of the project coming through and say, oh, it's not right, it's not right, it's not right. or, in one case it sits around for three years after the initial public meeting and no one had any idea what's going on, again. as a result, people are sandbagged when they get the 311 notice. and they are frustrated, saying what's going on, and the general public doesn't even know how to find the files. they don't know because the files exist in the ethers. they are electronic. they are not produced unless you are savvy enough to request e-mail and sometimes the e-mails don't even give you what you want and the environmental files are kept in a wierd drawer and people don't have the information that's in the environmental file. you may have a person who called

me, and i will track it down. but it is extremely tedious, and i have been pleading with staff to pay attention. you know that i have not been one of the bomb lowers at discretionary review. i haven't. i have been extremely subdued, but the more this problem goes on, and people feel that staff is making decisions, intentionally keeping people out of the review process and told go to the e.r. piece, it's not healthy. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> whom low commissioners, bonnie nineburg. 648 shotwell street. as was earlier mentioned, the historic planning commission met yesterday for the first hearing of the south mission historic research survey. in the survey, shotwell street was seen as the typical

streetcar suburb and was named historic district. the consulting architect who spoke at the hearing, called the buildings on our block, mine and my next door neighbors some of the most well-preserved pre-earthquake buildings in the entire city. the hbc commissioner, advised the survey author to include character-defining features to the specific shotwell street victorian that, before it gets adopted by hpc. those are, one, destaffed houses in open site and rear yards, two, to protect trees and vegetation, and, three, to protect retaining walls. matt weintraub agreed to these matt weintraub agreed to these features, and plans to include these revisions. since the proposed project next door do mine at 640-642 shotwell

includes plans to eliminate many of these features, such as the open side yard and trees and detached nature of the property. we trust you will take this new information into account as you review plans for that project. thanks very much for your time. president miguel: thank you. is there additional general public comment? if not, general public comment is closed. vice president olague? vice president olague: i just wanted to mention that i think i am familiar with the site that miss hester is mentioning because i was contacted also by some of the neighbors about this lot in bernal heights several years ago. it is a really awkward location. at the time it appeared that some of the development on that block would be occurring in a piecemeal way, soy full environmental review wasn't going to be done. and the people were really confused and they didn't sigh the notice until the day before and they couldn't file certain

type of appeals and everything else. i will get the address but i would like to talk to staff more about what's been going on with this site. i remember being alerted by neighbors three years ago, and then it died out and then crept up again two months ago, i would like to understand how it's being dealt with on the staff level, so -- clerk: commissioners, thank you. if we can move forward on your calendar, you are now on public comment on agenda items. where the public hearing has been closed. at this time members of the public who wish to address the commission on any agenda item already reviewed in the public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, your opportunity to do so would be now, each member will be able to address the

commission up to three minutes. the only item on calendar this relates to would be item 7, the lower crystal springs dam improvement project. when by call that item, the public hearing will be closed. i do not have any speaker cards for this category. president miguel: any general public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. clerk: thank you commissioners. you are now at consideration of findings and final action. the public hearing for this category is closed. item 7 is case 2006.0536e, the lower crystal springs dam improvement project, certification of the final environmental impact report. president miguel: project sponsor. clerk: it's the staff, so the sponsor would come up if you have any questions.

>> good afternoon, president miguel and members of the commission, erika lovejoy with the planning department. the item before you today is certification of the final environmental impact report for the proposed lower crystal springs dam improvement project. a copy of the draft certification motion is before you. the draft e.i.r. is published march 2nd 2010, there are three public comments, the first was in hillsboro, april 6th, the second was in san francisco before historic preservation commission, and the third april 8th, 2010. the document was published on december 22nd 2010, and

includes transcripts of the draft e.i.r. hearing. commissioners, i would like to note that the comments and responses document introduced and analyzed a variance which included water rereeced from lower crystal springs dam to san mateo creek, regarding concerns, regarding this bill which has all the same proponents of the project. the traffic variance would improve environmental conditions, in the creek and would not result in any new environmental impacts, nor would it increase the severity and no new mitigation measures are associated with this variance. subject to the publication of the comments and responses document, an errata sheet was prepared to correct an editorial oversight related to the adoption of air quality documents with ceqa documents

published by the bay area water quality management district. these do not contain any new information that would alter the information in the draft e.i.r. and do not trigger the need to re-circulate the draft e.i.r. pursuant to ceqa or the environmental quality act. we received two letters on on the project in the past two days, first from the california department of transportation pointing out that the san francisco public utilities commission, if it were to utilize a portion of interstate 280 as an alternate bicycle route, the city would need to pay for and implement those improvements. the question of using interstate 80 was already dressed in the comments and responses document on c & r page 111 and was not proposed as a mitigation measure

primarily because there are better more feasible mitigation measures to address these impacts. so a copy of the letter was placed in the file. there were no changes considered necessary in response to this letter. a second letter was also received last night and this morning by me from the bay area water supply and conservation area supply. they propose that the fisheries associated with the variance would impact their water supply and the ability of the san francisco public utilities commission to meet it's level of service goals originally established in the adopted water system improvement program. the comment and responses document has addressed this issue on cnr pages 13-20. the analysis concluded no new environmental impacts and there are no new mitigation measures

associated with the project variance. additionally, the project points out that in the event an actual water supply shortfall materializes before 201 , the commission would address that shortfall. complete note however that the range of water supply options that could be pursued by the san francisco public utilities commission if necessary was already analyzed in the water system improvement program environmental impact report, which this crystal springs document tiers off of so if the san francisco public utilities commission needs to reconsider its decision, and if the water supply needs cannot be met through the options that were analyzed and the water system program e.i.r., the planning department would determine whether additional ceqa analysis

is required. and addition 23458ly, the san francisco public utility commissions is proposing no change at this time and it's not certain any changes would be necessary at all. and as with the other letter, i have a copy in the project file and i have additional copies if anybody would like to see the letter. as presented to you in your draft certification motion, the environmental evaluate in the e.i.r. did find implementation of the proposed project would result in significant unaviddable impacts, these include long-term visual impacts along the shoreline of crystal springs reservoir and historic impacts on the dam itself. there are noise and air quality impacts from construction activities, as well as cumulative recreation impacts. additionally since this environmental impact report tiers off the water system

improvement program, the project would contribute to significant unavoidable impacts associated with the water improvement program and these are related to growth inducement in the public utilities service area as well as effects stream flow in a portion of alameda creek. not that because of implementation of the project would result in unavoidable impacts, she you choose to certify this e.i.r., the public utilities commission could override if it chooses to approve the project. the planning department request that the commission adopt the motion before you, that certifies that the contents of the report are adequate and accurate and the procedures through which the environmental impact report was prepared, complies with the provisions of the ceqa guidelines, and chapter

31 of the code. this concludes my presentation on the matter unless there are any questions. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: this is a question not on the e.i.r. itself but i am curious. the comment period was closed a while back. and then yet once you received two additional letters just yesterday, why is it necessary to even respond to those. if you were to write you a letter for example. >> it is true that we do not have to respond to these letters, probably as a matter of courtesy and also a matter of getting the information in the record that we have responded to these issues already in the comments and responses document. commissioner sugaya: i understand that, but if a member of the public were to send you something would it still be given the same kind of treatment? why have a comment period with

an ending in we are going to continue to comment after that date. bear with me, i am just asking a question. >> i think, you know, in the, maybe the planning director can correct me, but it's more or less a practice of the planning department to try to address public comment. >> i think that's right. technically we don't have to, but we almost always try to when we get comments that are late and we unfortunately get some very late comments. >> like this morning, for example. >> people wake up. helicopter? commissioner antonini: thank you. i think the document dealt very well with the situation of contingency situation regarding the water release into san mateo creek in regards to the issue with the help with the salmon spawning. my understanding is this would be something that would fairly small amounts and only triggered by an overabundance of watt are in crystal springs lake which is

one you would release, probably and the other is the spawning situation. but if you had any other comments you want to add, that's fine but it sounds adequate to me. >> there was analysis on the project variance, which is the amount of 3-17 cubic feet per second. there's also other releases that the public utilities commission is able to do. those releases would not change as a result of this project. commissioner antonini: thank you. president miguel: thank you. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i move to certify the e.i.r. commissioner antonini: second. clerk: the motion on the floor is to certify the final e.i.r. on that motion -- [ roll call ]

clerk: thank you commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, you are going back to item number 3 on the consent calendar. it is case number 2009.0464c, for 20 woodside avenue, also known as 501 laguna honda boulevard. >> good afternoon, president miguel and members of the commission. before you is a question for conditional use authorization to modify an existing verizon wireless telecommunications facility located at 20 wood side, aka501 laguna honda boulevard in an rh1d zoning district, the building is owned

and occupied by st. johns. it consists of three panel antennas, which would be mounted and concealed in the church's oupala. because it is airplays of worship, which is considered a public facility and because since yesterday there were a few phone calls of opposition due to a health concern. the department has determined that the proposal complies with current fcc guidelines. the department recommends approval with conditions, because the project complies with the applicable code and general policies. and the department cited one location, and the project is

desirable in that it will improve the comprehensive telecommunications network in san francisco for residents and visitors in the immediate area. the project proposed antennas would be concealed within an existing church and not visible from the street and will not result in an increase of wireless facilities on such property. this concludes our presentation and i am available for questions. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioner, jail pendelton on behalf of verizon wireless. i have no further items for you, except to add that these antennas are necessary as part of verizon's l.t. technology. we have spent the better part of the past year working towards upgrading or improving its 4g network.

we concur with staff's recommendation. i believe there is something in your packet and the health department has also reviewed and concurred with that report. if you have any questions, i will be happy to address them. president miguel: thank you. public comment? >> hi. i live at 21 vasquez a block away from this project. i understand the need in san francisco to expand wireless services and a lot of people complain they don't have service in a lot of areas because of the hills and that sort of thing. there's already a number of facilities at the facility. i know that they are adding this to their now 4g, that's admirable and fine, but there's a lot of attention at this one location. i know the planning department loves to put many antennas in one location to counteract clutter, that sort of thing, but it's gotten to the point there's

three cellular services here, and i don't want to set the precedent where at&t can come through and say we would like to put our service here because it's convenient here. there have been about seven neighbors that have contacted in the week who are also in opposition to the project and i would like to submit written comments as well. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: move to approve. commissioner antonini: second. clerk: commissioners the motion on the floor is for approval, on that motion -- [ roll call ]

clerk: that motion passed 5-1 with vice president olague voting against. thank you, commissioners. clerk: commissioners you she now on item 8a and b, 2007.123bm, better streets plan, information presentation on the better streets plan, and b is adopting a resolution of intention to initiate amendments to the gem plan. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am from the planning department staff. better streets plan and the amendments relating to the better streets plan. i am joined by aaron miller from the m.t.a. and rachel from the

potc which is reflective of the interagen interagency cooperation we have had. i will give you a brief informational overview of the plan which you heard about a year ago, but i want to get you up to date on where we are and legislation on the general plan amendment and the actions we would be requesting you take. linda, could i have the overhead please? . >> my presentation is going to be brief about why we have undertaken this plan in the first place and what the plan contains and, as i mentioned, specifics about the legislation and planning commission actions. the legislation itself would introduce at the board of supervisors by the mayor on september 21 and he introduced two pieces of legislation, one relating to municipal code amendments and one relating to

general plan amendments and a resolution urging the planning commission to initiate the general planning amendment which is the subject of this item at this hearing today. the better streets plan we started about three years ago, 2007, in conjunction with the mayor's greening initiative. since that time we have developed and released several drafts and with the final draft this past july and as i mentioned, the legislation that would adopt that plan into the city's code was introduced just a couple of weeks ago. when we first started doing the better streets plan, it came out of a recognition that streets make up a very significant area of the city, about 25% of the city's overall land which is more than even in the city's open spaces and that the streets could be fweter used to -- could be better used to meet reck national, social, public life and ecological needs as well. as well we were following city

policies for the transit first policy which has been on the looks and promotes the use of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use over private vehicle and the better streets policy which was passed in 2006 which tasks the different agencies in the city to work together to make streets coordinate the effort. and the better streets plan itself is a direct outgrowth of this policy. some of the major goals of the better streets plan is to use streets better for public space. some of the other initiatives such as the pavement to parks project are illustrating how this can be possible. we have also had a link with the public health department and streets that are better for walking and biking can improve public health by encouraging physical activity and reducing social isolation. we have also been working with

f.o.c. and their efforts to improve the storm water management and the role that our streets can play in managing the storm water collection and management and working as well with the m.t.a. and the transportation authority in terms of enhancing pedestrian safety and accessibility as one of the major goals of the plan. the plan was developed in from a significant public outreach program. we started in april 2007 and had a meeting in city hall with about 200 people in attendance and held over 100 public meetings about this plan at this point. a number of surveys and we also had a community advisory committee that met on a monthly basis to provide input into the plan and have received and incorporated a number of comments on the draft plan and dots on the map show where we have held a meeting and for the

pedestrian environment focussing on sidewalks and intersections and does get into bits of the roadway including creative uses of how to use the parking lane to improve pedestrian space as well as traffic features. the plan does not identify specific improvement projects. it is a set of guidelines meant to apply any time we embark upon a street improvement project and does not focus on the roadway. we are not talking about how to trade off road space and the commission is requested to promote human needs for the use and enjoyment of public streets and prior advertising either walking and the use of streets for public spaces and have public spaces for social interaction and community life. the plan identifies a number of

street types as sort of the basic frame work and we would do a different type of treatment on each of the streets with some commonalty with different levels on a neighborhood commercial street than an industrial street or downtown residential street and that is the basis for the recommendations and the plans for each of these street types. we identified appropriate sidewalk widths and how you divide up the different zones in the sidewalk so you keep a clear width for people to walk through but also get the amenities that you need to have. again, for each street type we identified a set of standard improvements and basic things we feel that are sort of the minimum that each type of street should have. and then in addition to that, there is a set of case by case additions that would be a bit above and beyond when we had a funded streetscape project to go to neighborhoods and talk about which type of the improvements would be relevant and desirable

on that type of street including traffic calling feature, medians and other creative uses of the street space. the result would be to serve a variety of land uses and prov e providing sunlight and access to different processes but in a ratder weak and uninviting wait and take a street into a much more strashs pedestrian environment and it is worth noting that the traffic and parking arrangements have not changed at all, but we have enhaensed it with different streetscape improvements and that is the goal of the plan. the legislation that was introduced would make amendments to various city codes as well as the general plan including the administrative, the planning code, the public works code and