raised, i think they need to be raised with more substantial evidence to support such allegations here. for those reasons, i will support the permit. >> i will call the roll then. is there additional comment, commissioners? the motion by the vice-president to deny the appeal and upheld the permit. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion carries 5-0. it has been a long night. we are adjourned.

>> please turn off all mobile devices that may sound off during proceedings. when speaking before the commission, please speak directly into the microphone and

state your name for the record. at this time, i would like to call roll. [roll call] first is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one and, case 20 11.0172 t.the commission will consider an ordinance introduced by supervisor mirkarimi concerning self-service restaurants, retail coffee stores, and video stores as well as additional recommendations by planning staff to consolidate existing restaurant definitions and controls. that is proposed until may 26, 2011. item two, case #20 11.0105 t. amending planning code inclusionary housing controls to add new alternative in market and octavia plan area.

proposed for continuous until june 9, 2011. items 3 a,b , b, and c, proposed for a continuance until june 23 until 2011. item four, a case to thousand 8.1218 c. 7 the gold mine drive is proposed for a continuance until june 23, 2011. i have no other continuances on my calendar. >> is there any public comment on items posed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> i move to approve a items continued and specified on the calendar.

>> move to approve the continuance. >> on that motion to continue said items, commissioner antonini? [roll call] so moved, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. on the consent calendar, all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items for case number is 2,010.0626 c, and item

six, case #20 10.0614 c. also a request for conditional use authorization. the preliminary recommendation is approved with recommendations. >> is there any public comment on items proposed for consent? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner more. >> move to approve both projects on the consent calendar. >> second. >> on the motion to approve -- [roll call] to so move, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously as well. it places you under the

commissioner's questions and matters. item seven. commission comments, questions. >> of 1 to briefly share with you an observation i made yesterday afternoon driving down division 0, particularly in the west side -- divisidaro, is particularly in the west side. the harding theater, which we have spent a lot of time on, is the most disappointing and abominable thing i have seen. in addition to a padlocked, which we deemed inefficient, because it caught the vandalism at the time, had griffey all over it. we approved this project. was a lot of work. there were specific implications -- >> at the time, when we did is we did not certify the environmental impact report.

we never got to the project, so there was never a project approved. we never certified may impact of environmental report. there was some talk that the neighbors would work with the supervisor, developers, to look at other potential ideas for the site, like continuing its use as a bitter. >> thank you for reminding me -- >> sad day, nothing developed from that. >> if there was a no approved eir, the owners still cannot leave their property in the condition it is and it really detracts from the neighborhood. i find it really sad that we do not have an ability to do something about it. >> does this not follow

supervisor chu's legislation on deteriorating or abandoned properties? >> i think supervisor chu's legislation requires vacant properties to be registered, requires certain minimal maintenance. we can look at that. just to clarify -- what you did is uphold the appeal -- >> that is right. we asked for and eir. >> that is correct. if the city attorney is taking note on this one, in the next block, going north, there is an abandoned, boarded up liquor store in the middle of the block also, which is also full of graffiti. two properties make it so hard. >> we cannot engage in conversation, obviously, but it

would be great if the department could give us the status of that. you are right, we spend hours here deliberating. commissioner borden. >> i want to commend the staff on the upgrades to the commission website. i did want to point out a couple of things that needed to be improved upon. first of all, the time of the meeting says 1:30. the role of the planning commission, there is generic language that must be used in other cities, including advising the city council, which we do not have. that language needs to be updated. the other thing is when you click on planning commission meetings, you see linda's name, her phone number, and that takes you back to the website with the contact information. it does not let you click through the agenda. just making it more usable would be more helpful.

>> i would like to commend the department on earning the apa northern california award for the better streets plan. i thought that was excellent. and a number of things that have engaged in planning, so it seems. i have been involved in the san francisco presidio. at a meeting last friday, there was discussion on the impact of the presidio -- the impact of the america's cup on the presidio. part of it evolved into a discussion of the f line into the presidio area, as well as impacting the national maritime museum, which is a separate national park service agency. that was interesting because

that conversation stated they are going to try to rush ahead as fast as possible and not have their construction impact america's cup. however, at aspur meeting this week, the america's cup came up, the statement was made, there is no way they are going to do it because it will impact america's cup, so it will happen later. so someone needs to get their comments together on this. i think it is very much in -- up in the air. i am hearing from various people who are supposedly authoritative, in the know, for that. monday, i attended the meeting, here in city hall, at the board of supervisors land use committee, the hearing called by scott wiener, regarding the hpc

preservation survey, among other things. the directors spoke, and number of department heads. i thought it was a very good meeting. i did leave before all of the public folks, or i probably would have been there for another three hours, at least. obviously, the item is continued, but i think it aired a number of questions people had, and number of viewpoints people had regarding that. the safeway at la paylaya has been under planning for four years, reconstruction, enlargement of 50%. they have a huge lot.

the planning department told them that they are going to not let them go ahead unless they incorporate housing. i was able to see the now fourth iteration, 3rd architect. this one seems to be getting it right. they are doing a tremendous amount of interactive work with the neighborhood, and that bodes well for the project. it is just very interesting to see how a major business organization can actually interact with the neighborhood. also out in that neighborhood, and the veterans administration medical center at 42nd and clement is planning to possibly double its size on something of a postage stamp campus there. by their own records, there are over 300 cars parked.

they are theoretically moving to mission bay, all or part of their operations. the expansion is hardly anything to do with patient care for veterans. it is all ucsf research, which is seemingly their primary mission at the moment, although not on paper. here you have a federal organization without any rapport with the community whatsoever. in fact, the community has filed suit against them, for noncompliance with nepa, and could possibly the very second legal action in order to get some reaction from them. the housing action coalition have their housing forum yesterday morning.

it was, as usual, an excellent forum. the chief economist for san francisco participated. this was one of the more, say, active, interactive discussions we have had regarding public housing, low income housing. i thought it was particularly well done. a lot of interesting statistics were brought up. everything from the financing on down. i already mentioned the spur meeting on fisherman's wharf. commissioner fong was there. that went really well. i had a conversation with

assemblymember kathleen from merced. she wrote the legislation on high-speed rail. the director's name came up several times as the head of the cooperative work the city has been pursuing for some time, the problems of 16th street, getting through, underground, not underground. to me, it somewhat resembles the problem san francisco has had from time to time with caltrans, whose objective is to move as

much traffic as fast as possible, sometimes regardless of the impact of the municipalities they go through. san francisco has, in recent years, a good record with caltrans. they have worked with the city to lessen the impact. hopefully, high-speed rail, they will be able to do so also. the friends of city planning, there was also last night. if i am not mistaken, the website, the ability to search the web site came from some of their grants. >> commissioner antonini? >> i read i was not able to attend the housing collection action forum. i understand it was very good.

i was able to briefly attend the friends of city planning. as always, it is a nice event. other meetings in the last week -- i met with representatives, who i believe -- the project have been continued for a few weeks now. also meetings between representatives for the academy of art university, property owner in mid market. this was very informative. i also met with some neighbors who were concerned with a project that was on our continuance calendar, 70 gold mine drive, and representatives from california medical center. those were my meetings. >> commissioner sugaya? >> just to comment on high-speed rail san francisco to san jose, it is very contentious, i think,

along the peninsula. having grown up down there, i can understand the resident's concern about high speed coming through their area. i can remember when i was a kid, we used to go to the bridge restore, we stood time it so that the 9:45 commuter train -- we would wait at the crossing. the timing was always perfect. anyway, i did not go to the friends of city planning because i was attending another reception. this one was pulled together by frank fong at the board of appeals in honor of mr. cornfield who have been transferred to the city attorney's office to work on seismic safety standards in the city, or something along those

lines. so he will no longer be representing the building department at the board of appeals. we did have staff defect from the friends meeting come to our perception. their names will not be mentioned here. [laughter] i did also attend, along with commissioner miguel and director ram, the supervisors hearing on historic preservation. i did stay till the very end, i think the second to the last speaker. i did offer some suggestions directly to the supervisor. i will be following up with that myself. lastly, in the business section, there was mention of a study that was done which places san francisco in the top five cities top five cities of opportunity.

if you go to the website, it is www.puc.gov, i think. there is an extensive amount of information at their, i think. that people analyzed to see why the san francisco is redid so high. i think a lot of people were surprised. but like all rating systems, they are ultimately suspect. commission president olague: a couple weeks ago, i asked for a password -- there was a study that the study the migration within the city. i still love not seen a copy of that. i would like to receive a copy of that. i would like to discuss, at some point, we mentioned a few possible topics for discussion

up here. but commissioners and members of the public of course at these meetings. it would be nice if they look at the calendar and start scheduling some of those policy discussions that have to do with parking and tourism and all of these other topics. hopefully -- maybe in july we can start calendaring at least once a month. well, that is it. >> commissioners, that will places under the directors' report. item eight, director's announcement. >> the evening. we received -- good evening. we receive one award, and a second award for the shipyard plan. that is one of the times we have seen the environmental impact report receive such an award. i was very pleased with that

award. i did want to mention the website. we are very pleased with the website. it was actually funded by the planning, allowing us to higher temporary staffers. the glitch was partially due to a miscommunication with the city will of the website before we were ready. [laughter] and so, we had to make some final changes. we were able to correct the glitches. as we speak right now, there is a hearing on the high-speed rail authority in sacramento, and several cities that are there. one of the issues being discussed is what they call the initial operating segments. i think we have been urging high-speed rail to think for some time about the san jose to

san francisco corridor, such that you would only need two tracks instead of four. it is clear from the study that four trucks are not needed for a number of years. it probably helps us in these discussions with the communities in the peninsula who are, understandably, concerned about this. there are city staff today at these hearings to testify in support of having that first segment. that piece of the whole system we have been working closely. a i think it has been a good introduction dept. tel effort. so, i am very hopeful we can make progress on this. one of the things that is interesting is the discussion

that we have. if you look at the long-term picture of the growth of the state, it really comes down to what type of transportation syste employing in 20 or 30 years down the road to accommodate the growth? if you compare a high-speed rail to other means such as expanding airports or highways, a think it is an interesting way to frame the discussion. that really is the choice. expanding airports and highways is not palatable to a lot of people. it is an interesting discussion i think we should be having on a broader, long-term policy. finally, i just wanted to mention with respect to the preservation hearing on monday, i think the commissioners for attending. i think it went on for about four hours. >> we stayed within an hour and a half. >> and we will follow up with

the supervisor on this. i spoke with the commission about this yesterday, the idea that i had proposed a while ago of a summit discussion on preservation issues. i would still like to pursue that. i would just offer to the commissioners, not necessarily today, but to give feedback on how that should be structured and how we move forward. i am going to approach a couple of sources for funding such an event and we will let you know how that goes. and i think that is it for me unless there are any questions. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: director ram, thank you for your report. it would seem that the two- track development would allow for phased development.

>> just for the benefit of the public, i would like to remind everyone to turn of the mobile devices that might sound off during the proceedings. if you have a call, please step aside. commissioners, that places us under item nine, -- a review of the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. >> [inaudible] i am here to give you your weekly update on the planning and when used by the supervisors. -- and land use by the supervisors. this concerns action items associated with the treasure island project. first, at the request of supervisor wiener, the land use committee held a hearing to consider the impact of historic

preservation policies on public policy goals. staff the the board of supervisors and the public through a presentation outlining where in the planning code in general plan historic preservation is relegated above the local level, as well as parking policies and requirements, which are two different things. in addition, other city departments presented, including the library, in mta, the mayor's office for housing. as you have heard, there was a large turnout for public comment on both sides of the issue. members of the board were willing to plan on a wide range of topics, including the ethnic and cultural diversity of staff and consultants working on historic preservation surveys, the number of -- and a specific

project question related to surveys. at the informational hearing, it was continue to the call of the chair. the land use committee also heard four items related to the treasure island project. there were the ceqa findings, the general code amendments, planning code amendments, as well as soon amendments. all four members -- all four of those items were forwarded to the full board of supervisors. at the full board of supervisors, there were three items i wanted to draw your attention to. the first was the determination of a type two of stale beer and wine license was appropriate in district one. the board passed a resolution in support of the license transfer.