we got the public-private partnership ready to go, and the cleanup of the shipyard almost done. we have the environment to work that was complete, we have the financial framework. all we need is a team to say that we want to say -- stay in san francisco. if the forty-niners want to do that, we would be working on building permits and not wondering if they are going to leave after they negotiate another five-year commitment. we are very close to working through some of the lease terms to commit for the giants for at least five more years if they figure out whether or not they are going to leave the city. whether or not they will stay in our city, we think it is the best thing for the franchise and

the people in the southeast sector. excited to see the giants in the world series and all of the energy. we are excited to see the scores go up. thank you for making a long-term commitment to san francisco and mission bay. it is great to see so many people out there at the bocce court. commissioner olague: good afternoon. -- >> good afternoon. this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for december 2, 2010. roll call -- commissioner sugaya. commissioner antonini.

commissioner olague. commissioners moore and borden are absent today. a first item on the calendar is closed session. at this time, you should entertain public comment on matters to be discussed in closed session. commissioner miguel: is there any public comment on matters to be discussed during a closed session? if not, public comment is closed. >> hmm. there should be a motion on whether to assert the attorney- client privilege. commissioner miguel: so moved. commissioner antonini: second. commissioner antonini: second.

>> again, these are closed items for proposed continuance, to december 9th, item 1 and 2, item 3 is 2198 filbert street has been withdrawn and is no longer before the commission and items 13, 14, and 15 of the 3 t-mobile cases for 1300 and 1500 grant avenue. also known as 501 greenwich, and 15, all being proposed for continuance february 17, 2011. >> i was on vacation but while i was on vacation there was a lot of e-mail traffic from the developer asking that the hearing date not boo the 9th because you wanted a full commission and asking for it to be set in january.

my clients hold themselves and everyone is available on the 13th. it is my understanding that you did not get a submission from the developer for next week, anyway. i do not know that firsthand. you may have gotten something that none of us know about. there was supposed to be negotiations between the architect and the process was strange, i don't know if they have asked for this to be changed, whether they rescinded from request for it to be changed, but my clients are under the assumption, because of the e-mail traffic that the developer had asked for a january date and we are just saying that january 13th is totally acceptable to all of my

clients. clerk: commissioners, miss hester is correct, the project sponsor requested additional time but the calendar had gone out so we asked they come here and make their request to you. president miguel: correct and i believe that has happened. >> todd mavis, project sponsor. yes, project sponsor does agree that we would like to continue this to january 13th. we did also just meet with the neighbors a couple of days ago and discussed the new date with them in person and are all in agreement that january 13th was an agreeable date with them. then we checked with the commission's schedule and determined that all of the commissioners would also be available on the 13th.

so because commissioner moore, due to her absence is requesting the continuance from today's hearing, we would support that and continue to defer to the planning commission as we have done in the past. this will also give us more time to talk with the neighbors and hopefully resolve our differences. please keep in mind that at the hearing on the 16th, vice president olague asked for a continuance, and we didn't have a problem with that either. we would like to meet with the neighbors as often and frequently as possible so we can resolve the problems and work things out with them. also i would like to point out contrary to comments that have been made for example today and in this past month, regarding our unwillingness as project sponsors to meet with the neighbors and resolve things, i would like to point out that the d.r. applicants hired

consultants in november and i think misinformed the planning commission saying we've been uncooperative and unwilling to meet with them. since october 14th, the last hearing we had, we have communicated numerous times with the neighbors, programly every day. we met with the neighbors and their architect twice with the planning department with the assistance of the planning department staff, aaron starr and with scott sanchez. we will continue to use this period of time until january 13th to meet with the neighbors and be as cooperative as possible to hopefully work out our differences. please also keep in mind since this project was proposed 13 months ago, we have been meeting with the neighbors on a regular basis for the past 13 months, and i have a history of all the

communications we have with the neighbors so you have a clear idea of how much times we've been meeting. so on behalf of project sponsors, we support today's continuance. we are variable on the 13th but hopefully we will be able to work out our differences before then, we appreciate your time and support as we continue forward with this journey. thank you. president miguel: additional public comment on items proposed for continuance? >> my name is julie jaycog, and we are two of the people on the discretionary reviews for 13, 14 and 15, and as the applicants, we are in support of the continue wants. we were informed by judson true

today about the continuing discussion between t-mobile and david chew, and the supervisors. i am getting nervous. and what i am interested in knowing about the date of continuance is there is going to be a full group of supervisors here, that's my only question about february 17th, if you would know that in advance. >> we have no way of knowing that. clerk: into way to tell you that. >> from what i heard of the suggestion previously -- so, scratch that, thank you for the continuance, i appreciate it. president miguel: thank you, additional public comment on items proposed for continuance? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner? vice president olague: i move we continue lloyd street to january 13th. >> second. vice president olague: and the three items, i will just, you

know, 13, 1500, grand, 16, 63 grand and stockton to february 17th. >> second. clerk: thank you. commissioners on the motion for continuance of items 2 to january 13, 2011, and items 13, 14, and 15 to february 17th -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you commissioners, those items are continued as we have discussed. commissioners, item -- the next category on calendar is your consent calendar, items 4 and 5 constitute the consent calendar and are considered to be rue toon and acted upon by a single roll come. there would be no separate

discussion unless a member of the commission, the public or the staff so requests, and in that event the matter or matters would be removed and considered at a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 4, for 3876 noriega street, a question for conditional use authorization to establish a new self-service specialty food bakery within the neighborhood commercial small kale district. item 5, 2505 3rd street, a question for conditional use authorization to concert approximately 8300 square foot ground floor space in an existing building, and, two, 5900 square foot brewery and a full-service restaurant. can commissioners, following any public comment which would automatically pull these items

off of the con sent calendar, these items are before you for your consideration. >> are there any public comments on the items proposed on the consent calendar? commissioner bore to dead? >> i move to dead? >> i move to approve 4 and 5 on >> i move to approve 4 and 5 on the consent calendar. >> second. clerk: on the motion for approval of items 4 and 5 -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you commissioners, those items are approves. commissioners, the next category is commissioners questions and matters, item 6 is consideration of adoption of some draft minutes. the first set of minutes is a special hearing of october 21, 2010, and that was a special meeting with just the planning

commission. item two -- the second one is consideration of your draft minutes from the special joint hearing of october 21. that was with the historic preservation commission. the third categories -- the third, fourth, and fifth categories are from your regular meetings of october 28th, november 4th, and november 18th, 2010. following any public comment on these draft minutes, and any modifications and/or corrections, we ask that you adopt the draft minutes. i do understand that there are -- there's a question for reconsideration of the draft minutes from the joint hearing on october 21, 2010. president miguel: ok. is there any public comment on the draft minutes?

>> sue lester, attorney for local 2. i am requesting a courtesy continuance of a week. the transcript i just got yesterday at 5:00. i had requested a crypt there h whether there was going be a transcript, i wanted iing to bea transcript, i wanted it when it was filed. it wasn't provided to me and my client until yesterday. it's 114 pages, and i would like to go through the transcript because it was an extremely complicated hearing at the end with the motions, and i believe the minutes should accurately reflect that. as a courtesy, i would just request a week for whenever you want to continue it to, so -- i have the transcript here. it's really lengthy and i would just like the courtesy of being able to review the transcript against the proposed minutes, thank you. president miguel: and you are specifically referring to -- >> the joint hearing.

that's the only one i got a copy of. i asked staff for the minutes and they sent the joint minutes. if the regular minutes have something in them, i haven't seen it. if the fairmont matter is dealt with only in the joint hearing, that's all i am caring before. >> thank you. clerk: just for the record, the fairmont item is only in the joint hearing. president miguel: that's my understanding. >> good afternoon, my name is paul fisher. i belong to hister. i belong to historic knob hill organization and i am speaking on behalf of the fairmont hotel project. having attended the hearing on october 21st we know the draft minutes do not reflect what happened at that hearing. the commissioners who were there also know that. we urge you not to approve such inaccurate minutes. the minutes should be be

corrected to reflect the vote to continue -- excuse me, reflect the vote to continue the fairmont matter to a new date following revision of the e.i.r. to respond to the comments made by the public and commissioners regarding its inadequacy. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you, additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner? vice president olague: i am going to go ahead and move to approve the minutes of october 28th, november 4th. november 18th, and the special meeting and continue the consideration of adoption of the minutes of the joint meeting of october 21st for one week. >> second. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i would like to support that. i think we all received an

e-mail from susan brant holly and i think the conversation of what we took in terms of action should be worked on a little bit more. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i haven't had a chance to review it. but that will be continued until next week, anyway. clerk: commissioners on the motion to continue -- excuse me, on the motion to adopt the draft minutes from the special meeting of october 21, the regular meetings of october 28th, november 4th, and november 18th, and continue the special environment meeting of october 21 to december 9th, on that motion -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you commissioners,

that motion passes unanimously. commissioners you are now on any other commission matters. any other commission matters. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. it's been a sad year in respect that we, over the approximate last year, we lost some major leaders in san francisco. among them, done fisher, walter shoren stein and most recently, mr. toldman, also a marin resident his entire life, mario illote has also died. there's a common thread that they gave so much and gave back to their charities and communities. i think it's really important that we continue to establish a climate in san francisco to attract and retain such leaders for the future. that's one of our challenges. i think mr. guillote was typical

of these leaders in that unfortunately his death was caused by a fall at age 8 rushing to his office on saturday to get his work done and get his grandson's football game afterwards. this is the kind of drive we need to have more of in the future. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i was selected for a jury and will not be at the regularly scheduled hearing next thursday and most likely won't be at the regularly scheduled hearing the following thursday. president miguel: i will just mention that i have met with people regarding 200 on market street, and some individuals regarding the cvs pharmacy project for san francisco. antonini?

commissioner antonini: and i neglected to say i have two representatives of both of those same projects, also, within the last week, thank you. clerk: commissioners if there are no other matters, we can move to directors reports, announcements and review of the board of appeals, supervisors and historic preservation commission. >> good after noon. i just wanted to mention a cub hinges. two meeting next week to remind you of. i believe you have received notification. one is wednesday the 8th notification. one is wednesday the 8th. at 5:45. we are -- in fact, i am hosting a discussion of the housing element. that will take 5:45 december 8th, in room 431. the public is invited. also saturday morning, 10:00 a.m. at the department, we will have a discussion of the department's action plan and the

most recent changes that we are proposing to you, and it's the subject of your memo that you admitted into your packet as well. again, that second meeting was december 11th 10:00 a.m. at the planning department. with respect to the action, we will be calendaring this for a full hearing in january. i wanted to call your attention to the memo in your packet that outlines the status of the department's reforms and in particular highlights our proposed revisions to the development review process. as it says in the memo, we have piloted this process with a couple of projects, and i believe this is a solid way of moving forward and feel good about way staff has come up with this process that itch think will be bloat more transparent and create more certainty for project sponsors. so i am very pleased about this process. we will, as i said, having a

hearing at the planning commission and historic preservation commission on that item. i also want do call your attention to the memo regarding cueing, vehicle cueing in your packet. you may be aware that's actually received media attention, we had initially proposed this, as what we perceived to be a growing problem of queuing on some types of retail establishments in the city, especially large grocery stores. there had been discussion, as you know, of a condition of approval that would require at some point, paying to park if the queue would continue. after furse analysis of that, what we have proposed is a standard condition in the future for these types of project that would essentially not allow practice queue. the way the standard condition would read is that we would dish there is responsibility of the owner and operator to make sure there is no cueing there and

there would be certain conditions put in place to allow us to make that determination and take further anion in the future. this solves the goal of the department. it was not to pay for parking but to address the queue so this addresses that much more directory and we believe it's a more workable solution. so our proposal is to actually use this as a standard condition now in future parking spaces of more than 20 spaces. thank you. i believe there was -- the board did not meet so there is no board of supervisors report for you this week as well. that's it for me, thank you. clerk: my understanding, commissioners is also no board of appeals report. i would not that the historic preservation commission did meet. director rahaim was there at that meeting yesterday and i think the only two things of not is that on the soma missor rick

resource survey, there was discussion, but ultimately the item was sins until next month. and, on article 311 the commission actually took action. they passed the draft motion with modifications of article 11 and section 309. i believe the final motion will just be sent to them. the item will no longer be calendared before this. they did have questions about, you know he, the next steps they really would like to involve themselves in the process of this commission as it goes forward with review of those issued. and that completes my worth unless the director has anything to add. clerk: ok, commissioners -- president miguel: and the information as to the details of the action they took will be

available hopefully in our packet at some reasonable time? clerk: as soon as the staff completes those modifications, and the resolution with their modifications, they would be forwarded to you, also. >> if i may, it would be helpful to know if the commission would like to calendar another hearing on that item as well, on these items. you have had, i believe -- my recollection is when you had the joint hearing. you wanted to have further discussions on these in the fit. i would think on our own unless there is an objection. >> our own, but -- >> well, initially on other on own and particularly after we have this information. it's probably going to end up being january. vice president olague: they discussed it on their own so we should have that opportunity to discuss it on our own. president miguel: or february,.

clerk: exactly, commissioners with that, we can move forward on your calendar to general public comment that has a 15-minute time limit. at this time, members of the public may address you on items of interest to the must be that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, each member of the public may address you for 15 minutes, keeping in mind that the category has a 15-minute time limit and that the public may not address you at this time on any item that is on your calendar. president miguel: any general public comment on non-calendared items? if not, general public -- excuse me. if not, general public comment is closed. clerk: thank you. commissioners then we are ready to start your regular calendar with item 10, case 2010.0965t, an ordinance amending planning code section 243, the van ness

special use district to require a conditional use authorization for other entertainment uses. >> good afternoon. the ordinance before you would amend the van ness special use district. sponsored by supervisor alioto peer, and i believe the supervisor staff is here to tell you a little bit about the intent of the legislation and then i will go over the department recommendation as well as one modification we will describe. mr. barns? >> phil barns. good afternoon, the van ness, d a you know is an under lying district between 1 and 4 and as a result there's disjointed planning where parcels are required for use for entertainment, others do not. we were hearing from the

community that neighborhood groups weren't getting notices when new entertainment businesses were going in, nor were they given the opportunity to comment. we think a uniform standard is good policy. in discussion with planning staff, we uncovered the underlying zoning, and rc disdis, so the supervisors is open to addressing that through this legislative vehicle as well, we have this item calendared in the last ease committee, and we hope we will be able to get this moved through the process. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners the department is recommending approval of this piece of legislation before you. as mr. barns recommended, we have one recommended modification and that has to do with the way land uses are permitted in this district. in the van ness special use

district, if they don't specify how the uses are controlled, then you would refer to how will underlying zoning permits uses. in this case, it doesn't specify how often entertainment is closed, it relies on underlying districts, rc3 and 4, and there is also a clause that doesn't talk about uses but they say you should determine whether uses are permitted in these districts by looking at the nearest neighborhood commercial district and it regulates that use that's how it should be located in this area. in this instance along van ness, you have a big strip of retail that has a more coherent look to it than the neighboring nc districts, so when you are applying chromes for what happens on van ness eve you are looking at different districts