item on the calendar for this hearing, roll call, commissioner moore. commissioner sagaya. commissioner miguel. thank you, commissioners. commissioners, the first category on today's calendar is your consent calendar, only one item on the consent calendar.

there would be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission or public or staff asks for the separation. item number one, 2010.104-03, mandatory discretionary review. following any public comment, which would -- we would automatically remove this from the consent calendar. >> is there any public comment. if it's against the project, i would suggest you speak, if it's in favor of the project, then your speaking would automatically pull it from the calendar. please come to the mike, sir. is this for the san jose project?

seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. commissioner moore. move to pass the project. >> commissioners on the motion for approval. >> the item is approved as proposed. item two on -- two on the calendar is generally decided under commission matters but i wanted to take care of it so it's further up on the calendar. this is consideration of the draft minutes from the regular meeting of january 13, march 3, and april 7 of this year. following public comment on your draft minutes and any modifications or changes you might make, i would ask that you adopt your draft minutes. >> is there any public comment

on this item? seeing none, public comments is closed. commissioner borden. >> on the second page, fifth row down, it says, under my comments, it says, when you're here -- it's spelled h-e-r-e, and it's h-e-a-r. the other issue isen the last couple of pages, page 11 in particular, commissioner fong -- page 11. commissioner fong is listed as ing on this. >> -- is listed as thong. >> we will correct that. >> both under 10a and 10b. >> we will correct that. ok. i move to approve with these

amendments. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. the motion for approval with the corrections, commissioner antonini is still out. [votes taken]. >> thank you, commissioners. case number 2006.0428-c. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm diego sanchez with the planning dpt. residential unit, parking spaces, it's located at 2401 16th street on the south side of 16th, the project sponsor,

it will be light industrial. under the future neighborhoods' control, it's a 40x district. it does not meet the minimum requirements under planning section 134 lowest level dwelling units. it's also seeking conditional authorization for light industrial zoning district planning code section 215 requires conditional use authorization. it's an existing urban area that permits gelling units.

it addresses the need for dwelling units as the units are either two-bedroom or three-bedroom. it's designed to high quality. the planning department has two letters of support for this project and is unaware of any opposition to the project. it was presented before the historic preservation committee as part of the eastern neighborhood, they voted 7-0 in favor of the project. given the findings, the staff recommends approval. i'm here for questions. thank you. >> project sponsor. >> i'm sorry, i got here late, can i interrupt for just a second? >> commissioner antonini. >> i came in late, i didn't

realize we already finished the consent item on san jose avenue, i believe. i have to announce that because the project sponsor is a dental patient of mine and i've received over the maximum for a calendar year that's allotted in dental services i ask for >> there is no need for recusal. the action has already been taken. commissioner antonini: no, we're on the right project. the one that was just called now. >> so yes, we would need recusal. president olague: so moved. >> second. president olague: on the motion for recusal of commissioner

antonini. [roll call] >> commissioner antonini is recused. >> good afternoon, honorable commissioners. i'm here representing thomas coin. this is a local family development proposal. through the last few years, we worked closely with staff. this proposal has been through many it rations with building height and design. we would like to thank them for working with us to arrive at the current 40-foot-tall residential building. this infill project will allow 12 new family-sized units on an underutilized surface parking lot on a relatively short block. although the proposal is a pipeline project, we believe this application meets the intent and the spirit of the new

zoning district and the controls set forth for the residential unit size, mix, off street parking and usable open space. this building will act as a buffer between residential districts in an area surrounded bay vibrant mix of uses. as mr. sanchez stated on april 6, the historic preservation commission concurred with staff that the project is compatible and appropriate in size, matching skill, pattern, and material. with the adjacent surrounding buildings and adopted that motion. and finally, i'm extremely happy to inform you that we have the support of the adjacent property owner, mr. sam haskins, who owned the building with the mural artwork. after several meetings with mr. haskins, his wife mary lou and the mural artist, we were able to reach a positive agreement with her neighbors. on behalf of my client and the project sponsor, i respectfully request that you approve the project as proposed and i'm

happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you for your attention. president olague: thank you. public comment? i have one speaker card, judy west. >> afternoon, commissioners. i live in the immediate neighborhood. i'm really glad to see a presidential project finally making its way through the is. i think that it's a real disservice to the city that industrial protection zone that we've installed upon our neighborhood. i think that you all should take some responsibility for the lack of middle income housing in this town. we funded a lot of affordable housing in the last decade with high-end condos downtown, and this is the kind of housing that we actually need in a part of town that is not so expensive to build. i think you're responsible for a lot of the suburban sprawl in the outlying counties that went under foreclosure because

there's no middle income housing to purchase in san francisco. really happy to see this forward, but i hope you will move to expedite other housing projects that are in the eastern neighborhoods. i also encourage you to look at the housing areas where there are not shared rear yards, that those things were designed for. you're auven creating a tiny little shady place against full lock coverage neighbors, if you understand what i'm saying. i think that it's great that these guys are getting any housing in here. i don't think they should have to have a rear yard. they've got the big park across the street. and i hope you can develop some better guidelines for open space for housing in the eastern neighborhoods because rear yards are just not appropriate in an area where your neighbors are industrial.

how an empty lot like this went to the historic commission, i'll never know. but i am in support of this. thank you. president olague: is there any additional public comment on this item? >> yes, my name is sam haskins, i was referred to earlier by tony kim. and i just want to mention two different things. first, i want to acknowledge that after numerous discussions, we did reach an agreement with the owners and their agents, and i just want to express my thanks for their acknowledgment and appreciation of this public art, this important piece of public art. the second item i want to mention is the one relating to parking. a number of -- we own two buildings in the bryant street block, and we have a number of

tenants, about 16. a number are concerned about the issues with parking in that immediate area. he told me there is one parking space per unit, but that's because this was originally filed in 2006. if it were filed today, there wouldn't be any requirement for my off street parking. now that's unbelievable to me. is that true? it's sort of like saying people should eliminate cars for their ways getting around. my wife and i walked, we ride bikes, we ride public transportation, and we drive.

we have two young granddaughters that we pick up on occasion every month or two and bring them over to the city with all their gear and everything else. if we had to take public transportation to pick them up, it's crazy. i'm not going to ask for a show of hands of any of you that don't have a car -- ok, that's unusual. >> are you calling me unusual, sir? >> as far as the owners are concerned, i can't imagine trying to represent them. but can you imagine selling these places if they didn't have an off street parking space? anyway, that's really all i have to say. i think that driving is something that most of us do and is an important part of the way we get around. president olague: i'm glad to hear that you resolved the

issues on the art. >> we're all very glad, too. president olague: is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i think it's a great project. i'm glad you resolved the art. i'm happy to see it's on site. i move to approve. >> second. president olague: commissioner miguel? vice-president miguel: i'm fully in support of the project. i have admired the public art in this particular artist for many, many years as being the great type of public art that makes you actually see it. and does a very, very good job. this is a perfectly cited project. it has public transportation. it's actually right next to a great olet san francisco

institution restaurant and bar. i knew the former owner quite well. it's really well designed. pleased to see it. >> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval. [roll call] president olague: thank you, commissioners. the motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now at a category of comment where the public hearing has been closed. and at this time, members of the public who wish to address you on an agenda item that has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, the opportunity to do so would be at this time. the only item on this calendar would be item number four. at this time, each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes on that item.

president olague: commissioner commissioner sugaya:? >> yes. i have to recuse on the actual item itself. so i guess i can ask for recusal for that item as well. the firm that i work for prepares a portion of the environmental impact report and therefore i'm recused from voting on this particular item. >> there's a motion for recusal. on the motion for recusal of commissioner sugaya -- [roll call] >> commissioner sugaya is recused.

>> i am here to remind the planning commission how lopsided this whole process has been. a developer wanted a nine-unit condominium project built on 701 lombard street. it was approved. the neighborhood spearheaded by supervisor peskin wanted an open space park without any building, and the supervisors voted to use the power of eminent domain. now a new developer wants to build a library on the same space which is intended for open space. with a footprint that is larger than the original developers planned. this footprint is so large it needs to extend to mason street in order to function. this new building also looks like a box store if you'll show the overhead. it looks like a box store, which

by the way are not allowed in north beach. throughout this process, i keep wondering why "the chronicle" voices oppositions for landmarking in any of the city's buildings. now i know, if i were the chronicle in a herself corporation, i would have been against landmarking as well. they stand to lose millions of dollars under developmental efforts downtown if any of their buildings get landmarked. one of the three neighborhood meetings, the developers architects said the north beach library could not be rebuilt there because it was seismically unsafe. as all of us were late persons, no one questioned that -- laypersons, no one questioned that statement. no one spoke at that time the elimination of a baseball field, which was also part of the plan. also the friends of joe dimaggio

keep pushing for a change of the playground that ends up reducing the joe dimaggio baseball field and actually making the playground smaller. joe's friends would never have allowed the baseball field to be eliminated. these so called friends are not really the friends of joe dimaggio. i would call them the ebbmies of joe dimaggio. any of the three neighborhood meetings, the public has never been told that the park did not have any money for phase two. all of this has all been done with smoke and mirrors. the library has millions of dollars and a large staff for public relations to keep pushing for a 500-foot development, and as you can see, it's effective. but the truth is you can build a 20,000 square foot building and they can only use 6,000 square foot of that building. if we were to build the building on the present site that goes all the way to lombard street, we would have a much larger

library all on one floor and that would go from 8,500 square feet to 12 thousand square feet. president olague: thank you. peter warfield, bradley, lizzie hirsch. so i guess we should have mr. herrera, and mr. ginsburg wanted to speak. should it follow this portion of the hearing? i believe so. this is public commentary, so it would be when we hear the item, when the item is called, and it hasn't been called yet. >> this is public comment only on an item that has been closed. this is not the time for presentations. this is on the e.i.r. president olague: this is public comment on agenda items where the public hearing has been closed. which is only the e.i.r. but the actual e.i.r. hasn't been called yet.

the actual item hasn't been called. >> i'm peter worfield, executive director of the library users association, and we have some strong concerns that we have been raising throughout with regard to the environmental impact report. we're disappointed by the responses in the planning department's recently published comments and responses on the

deir for north public library and so on. the document essentially appears to be in large measure a brushoff of public comments. and we've sent you a letter by e-mail today prior to this meeting. it's a little bit like the monty python skit, which i believe it's john cleese -- >> keep going. >> the public's comment time is very limited and i would appreciate the attention of the body while the public is speaking. i believe it's john cleese who goes and pays a group that is selling various services, including argument. he goes into a room and sits down with a guy at a desk, and

ends up with essentially a dialogue that goes, yes, i did, no, you didn't, yes, i did, no, you didn't. and complains that he's getting contradiction instead of argument. that's what largely this comment does. for example. our comment that the branch facilities plan is seriously misconstrued in the draft e.i.r. got a response at page 81-82 that the branch facilities plan is a living document. so presumably is not binding. but what did the branch facility's plan say? and it stood and still stands. for example, architecturally significant buildings, it says properties considered by the planning department to be architecturally significant in their own right or significant to the context of the neighborhood are not considered appropriate for demolitions and will be eliminated from consideration. the planning department's own

analysis and that of others as evaluated in north beach branch as being worthy of being landmarked and a staff planner confirmed to us that this makes the branch namely architecturally significant. there were further things in the plan such as any capital improvement plans shall have -- for users and staff. such a goal can be met using flexible experience design and so on and so forth. we ask you again to spare north beach branch library. and not go forward with the demolition. president olague: thank you. i believe sue clausen would like to speak because she has a meeting. so if you don't mind. >> i'm sue clausen, i chair the coalition for a better north beach library.

we have partnered with groups throughout san francisco, including all the preservation groups to ask that the e.i.r. be ignored and that the current north beach library be preserved and that we have a park on the triangle instead of a large out-of-character library. the problem with the e.i.r. is that it lacks balance. it is a sales pitch for the program that the library wants to enunciate. and it doesn't really address the issues of eminent domain, which you know about. doesn't address the issues of the open space sun being used to buy the land that is on this triangle. it doesn't speak to prop m priority policies, which are being violated, in particular the ones about neighborhood character and the ones about

preservation of historic buildings. also, they seem to try to make you believe that the current library could not be expanded or renovated. the original plan was to renovate the library and do a small expansion. and we have submitted several plans. in fact, we met with the planning people and the people who wrote this e.i.r. to discuss our plans for expansion. unfortunately, it didn't show up in the e.i.r., so we ask you, please, to deny certification. thank you. president olague: thank you. sir, she has to go to a meeting, so we took her out of -- >> i'm an architectural historian in san francisco. and i was also trained for a while in architecture and i'm really shocked that this plan could go forward, that the

response is so inadequate as well as the e.i.r. i would like you to flash on to the images here. of course, showing the same wall over and over and over again is like looking at this building and presenting this facade as the city hall. that's the kind of non-depth that we've seen through this whole period. now, the responses and the e.i.r. find that this is less than a significant impact. a haircut is a less than significant impact. 28% is a decapitation. this shows the width of the view corridor, the color shows the impact. now, the e.i.r. falsifies these figures over and over again. they are not shown -- you can see -- we'll get into that a minute. as far as the playground.