you have agreed to. i have an appellate practice, that is all idea, especially now. the appellant brief, the reply brief, that is it. >> we should try not to be as legal as not.

>> after the discussion, we need it in motion. >> the new rules will be effective tomorrow but a briefing schedule wouldn't pry going forward. it appeals said it -- it appears that these are already in the pile. >> so moved. >> that was my motion. >> [inaudible] on the hearing pending further information by the city.

>> we can amend our rules at any time. >> there was a key changes to the draft and i will refer to this as the draft and tel. >> i will vote no but i don't want to vote no because so much work went into these.

>> please call the roll. >> on the motion is to adopt the proposed rules with those two changes and the effective date is december 16th but this will keep the old briefing schedule. >> aye. >> aye. >> do you need to say the date of the proposal? this is dated 12-15. >> thank you.

the vote is 4-1. >> thank you for your comments. with that, i think we are returned -- adjourned.

>> good morning. before i call will, please turn off your cell phones, pagers, and electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. roll-call. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. commissioner antonini. commissioner olague. thank you. commissioners, the first category on a calendar, items proposed for continuance. item 1 is 42774-2773 filbert

street. the second item is case -- i am one is for -- item 1 is for 277 4-2783 filbert street. there are no other items that i am aware of being proposed for continuance. commissioner miguel: public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? >> [inaudible] i sent in a request for continuance of item three, market street. >> to what date? >> to a date after which when the process -- a private sponsor

complies with section 303e. >> at this point, because i do not have any inflation, maybe we can take this up -- and it is the next item, so maybe we could take it up at the call of the item. commissioner miguel: thank you. any other public comment on the items proposed for continuance? if not, public comment is closed. >> just in regards to the first item, do we know what issues are involved here? i think this was continued once before. i'm sure it is a procedural thing. i do not know if projects sponsor is present or in agreement. >> i'm afraid i do not know why the request was being made. >> i do not hear any comments, so i think i will move to

continue item one to the date proposed. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion for the continuance of item one to february 10, to the content. -- to february 10. thank you, commissioners. the item has been continued as proposed. commissioners, you are now on your consent calendar. items three, four, and five constitute consent calendar. they are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there would be no discussion of the items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests. it would be removed from consent calendar and considered as a separate item as a future hearing. item three,, the member of the

public requested that this be continued to a later date. the other items, i would ask that you consider those unless they are removed prior to considering item three. item four is his 2,008.0477c, request for a conditional use authorization to establish a new wireless telecommunication services facility consisting of seven panel antennas located within an existing church steeple as part of at&t wireless telecommunications network. item five is case 20 10.08 phase 3 c -- 2010.0853c, requests for conditional use authorization to establish, and i believe that

just wants to clarify that. the accessory massage room in an existing yoga studio within the mission street neighborhood commercial transit district and a 40-x item. my understanding is that even though there is a modification, staff is requesting that this item remained on consent. following any public comment of these items, which would remove these items from consent, these matters are before you for your consideration. commissioner miguel: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i was only asking for item 3 to be pulled off consent. i do not see any need to continue this item unless there

are compelling reasons presented. commissioner miguel: is there a motion on four and five? commissioner antonini: i would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion for approval of items four and five, on your calendar, commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. thank you, commissioners. items four and five have been approved. commissioners, going back to item 3 on your calendar, again, this is case 2010.0118c for

market street. >> commissioners, are you ready to hit this item? the item before you is case 2010. 1018c. the project is located in the mtc 3 moderate scale transit district. you may recall this project. it came before you last year. the item was -- the project was ultimately approved. there was an appeal of the mitigated negative declaration, and both the ceqa case and conditional use case were appealed to the board of supervisors where it was upheld. what is before you today is a request by the project sponsor to amend two of the conditions of approval from the previous project. there is no physical

modification proposed to the exterior of the building. the only physical alteration is the elimination of two subterranean parking garages that would have housed parking spaces for the project. the project sponsor has altered that proposal to include staffers to accommodate the parking, and as a result, save for the voluntary inclusion of six spaces, are being reduced to two spaces. the code requires one. and the request to modify the project satisfaction of the affordable housing requirements from providing 17 units on site to providing 23 units offsite, and it would have to comply with section 415, by providing those offsite units within a

one-mile radius of the product site. the market the units could not be sold until the offsite in its are filled and ready to go as well. that concludes my presentation. the planning department recommends approval with conditions. commissioner miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> good morning, commissioners. thanks for considering this amendment to my conditional use approval. basically, -- >> excuse me, could you state your name? >> my name is brian spears, project sponsor. basically, the parking minimum and maximum exchange quite a bit

over the time i started designing the project with my team. initially in 2006, we had a design for 115 parking spaces with that curb cut on market street. at that time, the parking was 75% 41 bedrooms, and you were required to do one perk 500 square feet of commercial -- 75% for one-bedrooms. we needed subterranean parking to accommodate that. over the course of the next two years, parking changed a couple of times. we also lost the ability to a curb cut on market street, so we came around the canon and ended up with a red and some card elevators, but when i came to the commission at that time, parking was that 75%, and you were allowed up to 1 per 1500 square feet of your commercial. at the time i initially proposed my project, i was

proposing 91 parking spaces, which again, required some subterranean garage to accommodate the parking. during the negotiations with the neighborhood groups and the planning commission and the desire to see 50% parking for residential, i agreed to reduce my parking to 50%, which meant a reduction from nine to one -- 91 down to 69 total spaces, which included -- i voluntarily requested to do six car shares basis. the fact that i volunteered that was because i had the subterranean garage with lots of room in a peer this was moving pretty fast. i made the decision to even the normally required to do one car share, i put in that i would do six. again, we got approval to the board of supervisors, and subsequently, when we were

designing our building, by using cars factors to accommodate our parking, i can get pretty close to my 50% parking on my ground floor behind my commercial, and it eliminates excavation and spending a lot of money on unnecessary parking structure, which i think is kind of the goal of the new parking mandates in the city, so i currently am proposing to provide 54 spaces for residential. 52 are my car sackers, and two handicapped accessible. due to space constraints, i can only set in two, which again, i'm required to do one. so i'm dropping my total request from 69 down to 56, which is 13 less cars, and that is the reason we redesigned our parking proposal. if there is any questions i can

and sit on the parking, or i will move on to the inclusion very aspect -- any questions i can answer any parking, or i will move on to the inclusion very aspect. my partners and i agree that we would do the include jerry housing requirements, which would be 17 units at 100% of ami onsite. again, after looking at our project and analyzing the best way we could move forward, given the fact that i am involved in another site that is close by, i feel an opportune spot to build some of site units, we are proposing to move our 17 on- site at 100% of ami to 23 off- site. as the housing requirements have changed, i believe it will be 70%. they used to be 80%. we will do it well within a mile.

that is our proposal. that kind of sums up where i'm at. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> you are welcome. commissioner miguel: is there any public comment on this item? >> good morning, again, commissioners. steve william representing the neighbors who live directly behind this building. we are asking that the matter be continued because the project sponsor has not complied with section 303e, which specifically states that any modification of conditions of an existing conditional use authorization must be treated as if it were a brand new application, and, in fact, that is what this is -- a new submitted application. number one requirement for a new application is a public outreach meeting where people who are

going to be impacted by this conditional use authorization have a chance to hear what is going to happen in their neighborhood and an opportunity to comment on it, and i cited those in materials i submitted. i do not know why linda did not get it. i e-mailed it yesterday and then submitted hard copies as well. but i quoted those sections for you. absolutely clear that this application is not actually properly before you without having complied with those mandatory code requirements. especially for conditional use authorization, which is supposed to be necessary and desirable for the community in which it is place. this public outreach is absolutely crucial. neighbors were not informed of the filing of the new plants, of the changes. i was not informed. these may be wonderful ideas. they simply were never vetted

through the public process. and they are not small changes. virtually eliminating all the parking on site, making it cars stacking only, and coupled with the elimination of most of the car shares basis -- car share spaces, you will have problems with people parking on the street, double parking, may be blocking transit at the site. we would also like to have the opportunity to bring to the commission's attention how much this project has changed since you saw it last. as you may recall, the neighbors issue with this was the code exceptions that were provided to this particular developer, the gifts given to this particular developer, which have tremendous negative impact, and those are the rear yard modifications, and the projects that you all passed out of here was not legal, was not code compliance. you were told, "we modified this

rear yard because it was a corner lot" and if you look back at all the applications you -- that were submitted to you, you were told corner lot. at 5:00 p.m., before this was heard, the board -- before the board of supervisors, they finally realize that we had it right. it is not a corner lot. the rear yard modification that we use was not correct. here is what we are talking about behind this property. here is where the walls should be. here is where it is. it is 10 feet from these apartments. there is some 65 units back here that are grossly -- commissioner miguel: thank you. is there further public comment on this item?

>> hello. my name is david, on behalf of the project sponsor. i just wanted to add that 300- foot radius letters were sent, as required by the code. we believe that the notice provisions were treated as this -- as if this were a new conditional use application, and mr. williams, i consider wanting to testify all over again about these matters we heard during the approval process. this is not a new matter. there is nothing changed in this project, the physical structure. has not gotten any closer. it has not moved. this is going a little bit too far, but i think we have satisfied the planning code, and i think the planning department can address that. thank you.

commissioner miguel: thank you. >> department staff. we are not aware of any required pre-application. we believe public notice was conducted in compliance with the requirements, so in our minds, the project has complied and is ready to be heard. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: when i asked to pull this project off consent, i had not envisioned that we would reopen a very contentious and long drawn out discussion about this project in which commissioners spent a lot of very thoughtful time helping and hearing the neighborhood shaping and reshaping the project and coming up with the reasonably compromise position that we would support the project because it has many attributes which we support.

personally, i do not see that the change in conditions is a major issue, which changes the project. the only reason why i pulled it from consent is for us to briefly reflect on the trending and inclusion very housing and the trending is a pattern of promises by which people get approvals and strong approvals and then shortly thereafter change their mind. i'm concerned about that because i personally do believe that on site is extremely important and valuable to the city as it is. the city is a mixed use city. the city is a mixed social in come conglomerate, and that is part of its strength. it helps to increase livability for all. what i felt was missing in staff report was what mr. speer

described to us, that there was an attempt to do the right thing, and i would actually ask him to come back one more time and describe in more detail how he is intending to do that. he briefly touched on this, but there might be more. perhaps the project sponsor could describe that to us because i would like to avoid giving the development community the impression that we are easily bendable went on-site inclusion areas promised, only to come back and change it. in this particular case, i think mr. spears is offering a novelty approach. i would like you, if you would not mind, spending a couple of minutes to describe that for all of us.

>> thanks, commissioner moore. i'm involved with another site that works, and it is well within a mile of the principal project. again, i understand the desire, but i feel that the 23 units in its own building has attributes that are very important as well because you are not dealing with hoa association with higher dues. you have a building that is within the one-mile radius, and you have an increase of 17 to 23 units and a decrease in price from 100% ami to 70%. given the fact that we have the ability to do this and try to move two projects together at the same time presented an opportunity for us to do that, and it helped our project