from the crime scene. they sat for two years at the crime lab. during those years her killer and rapists continue to rape women in san francisco. if those samples had been tested within a few weeks or even a month, we would have gotten a hit because circular and rapists had spent time in prison for fleshing. his dna was collected as a part of his 2001 imprisonment. we could quickly apprehended him and those women would not have been raped. i think that other jurisdictions around the country are adopting these sorts of claims. thank you all for your attention to this. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you, commissioner. supervisor chiu: let's open it up to public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is

closed. final comments? supervisor alioto-pier: not as an official member of the committee, i cannot make a motion, but i do have an amendment, if we could pass the amendment. i would just like to thank you for your time. one thing that i do want to say is that we obviously talking about crimes that disproportionately affect women. not 100%, but disproportionately. from the experience i have had within my own community, this is on the forefront of women's minds. showing the people that perpetuate sexual assault are caught, imprisoned, and obviously convicted. i ask and hope for your support today. supervisor chiu: can i ask for the articulation on the specific

amendment? >> thank you very much. after conferring with supervisor alioto-pier i wanted to read the precise language. page three, lines 4 through 6, subsection , it shall now read a "accompanying the mayor's budget submission and continuing, the police department shall report on its performance in meeting the goals established by this section. supervisor chiu: could we have a motion? without of it -- without objection, the amendment shall be made. i understand that that is non- substantive. with that, if this item could be moved to the full board with recommendation? something for us to consider tomorrow. without objection, it is the case. madam clerk, item number four.

wax item number four, -- >> item #4. ordinance authorizing the san francisco police department, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to retroactively accept and expend grant funds in the amount of $424,107 from the united states department of justice/national institute of justice "solving cold cases with dna" grant program; and amending ordinance no. 191-10 (annual salary ordinance, fy2010-2011) to reflect the addition of three (3) part-time positions (1.50 fte total) in job classification q4 police officer iii in the san francisco police department. supervisor chiu: thank you, madam clerk. this is an acceptable spend grant regarding grant money from doj and we have a representative from the police department to explain. >> this is very timely based on the topic of dna. i will give you a brief background to let you know what this project entails. the background is that there was

a grant applied on march 11, 2010. by then the commander and national institute of justice award, the san francisco police department has 1151 unsolved homicides over the last 25 years and 900 reported but unsold rates over the past 10 years. there is a 10 year statute of limitations for rape cases. meaning that we would look at cases from 2001 through the present. during the two years from 2007 to 2009, 70% of the department investigating homicides or sexual assaults and as a result the district attorney's office was able to charge 33% of sexual assaults in and 60% of the homicides.

the police department is very interested in obtaining resources to focus on cold cases to go after perpetrators before they can offend again and not without the funding to hire three part-time experienced investigators with testing lab services and training and travel and we currently have four investigators. this project will enhance our knowledge base through cold case training, assisting the department in developing strategies for resolution of violence, sexual assault cases. many of the cold cases will be examined and 100 selected for further review.

evidence will be submitted for the laboratory and a possible bulk loaded into our combined dna index system. the police department crime lab does not have sufficient resources to investigate the backlog and in some cases will be tread -- contracted out. as we have been doing this year to eliminate the backlog. the crime lab also has as it -- evidence wearing nine-marker dna profile was developed. we are going to look at our dna and retrieve evidence that 13 marker profiles to be developed from. criminal cases where no suspect has developed biological evidence can be retrieved through dna typing where criminals search for evidence against the database. the department will review investigative results to actively pursue leads, interview witnesses, working with staff to

pursue resolution. this is not only good for the police department, but great for the city and county. we competed nationally for this grant and it was awarded. as a result we will be able to work to solve many of the cases and increase public safety in the city. at this time i will take any questions. supervisor elsbernd: just a quick budget question. these are new positions, not money being used to replenish the general fund or anything like that? >> this is new money, $424,000. supervisor elsbernd: this money was not on the revenue side back in july? it was unexpected? >> i am getting the fiscal director saying no. we were not anticipating this at all. supervisor chiu: these folks will be on staff under this

grant for how long? >> 18 months, if i am not mistaken. of course, low. supervisor chiu: -- of course, we will. supervisor chiu: thank you, cmdr. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> supervisors, my name is san francisco [inaudible] whenever we get grants and they are applied directly to maintain standards, the consider and of san francisco is appreciated. what we would like to see in the southeast sector is empirical data on those that commit

crimes linked to our children. and i know that this grant does not specifically address that, but it does address cold cases. another thing that i am willing to state to the command group that is under growing -- undergoing and other changes, is that we need to have very high standards to make up for what has been going on at the crime lab. i do not know how you or the supervisors, the future mayor, think about the crime lab. i and my subjective opinion, we need to move. any laboratories that are at hunters point, that toxic

cesspool over there, it needs to be moved away. if we want to have something built at mission bay, we need a time line so that all of these future grants and standards can be resolved. supervisor chiu: any other members of the public? seeing no one, public comment is closed. can this be moved to the full board? without objection, that is the case. madam clerk, any more business before the committee? >> no, mr. chairman. supervisor chiu: thank you, this meeting is adjourned at this time.

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