commissioner borden: what correlation is there between housing and other kinds of districts? >> i think so. i will look to that to be certain. >> thank you, commissioners. you can move on to the director's report, directors announcements -- director's announcements. >> thank you. commissioners, i have one in to call your attention to. there is a memo regarding the japantown neighborhood process, and there are community meetings coming up there are three meetings. june 1, to 27 and july 31. -- june 1, june 27, and july 31.

what is the time of the meeting? they are all happening at 1840 sutter st. at 8:00 in the evening, i believe. it does not have the time on it. as the community is looking at the planet that you had seen at about a year-and-a-half ago. they are booking added and recommending changes. these meetings will be held to get a broader view on the plan. again, june 1, june 27, in july 31. i think scott has something. >> i just wanted to remark on the legislation on the three frontage is sponsored by supervisor mirkarimi became effective. residential units seeking a parking reduction would come to the commission.

that has been changed. now residential and commercial parking -- dcr districts -- can be reviewed and reviewed against a set of criteria, and this is under section 307-i. we had a few applications submitted prior to this becoming effective. some of those will not be coming before you because of the legislative change. others will be coming before you because there required conditional use for other aspects. we have a hearing next week and i wanted to inform the commission of the change. >> good afternoon. commissioner antonini: i am sorry. the japantown meeting is at 6:30. start for the interruption. >> continuing on with the board

of supervisors meeting -- this week on tuesday, the board of supervisors did hear a ceqa appeal for the 2004 housing element cir. the commission certified be cir this year. its address both the impact of the housing element as required by the board of appeals direction, as well as the essential impact of the 2009 housing element and proposed general plan amendment. this week, they expressed five main concerns. they changed from draft dodger draft 3 of the 2009 housing element and said there is potential environmental impact not analyze. they were concerned about the population growth. they were concerned that the cir

might not contain a reasonable range of alternatives and the city might not have sufficient water for the project. the last item included supporting regional planning efforts that were not analyzed in the eir. planning addressed all the claims in the eir. on the basis of this work, the department successfully maintained that the eir was accurate, adequate, and complete. the board listened to all parties. that concludes my report. there were a couple of items introduced, not introductions of new legislation, but rather legislation you are familiar with. this is legislation for the presidio, at 800 presidio avenue, sponsored by farrell,

mar, and mirkarimi, as well as the miscellaneous technical amendments such as the clean code legislation and you heard last summer. as you know, the historic preservation commission has continue their hearings on the item, and until you guys reconcile the differences between the portion containing articles 10 and 11 and the historic resource amendment, staff will remove all the historic preservation alamance. the proposal before the board is everything you recommended outside that, which we have been asked to vote on. that concludes my report. commissioner antonini: thank you for the report. on the ceqa appeal, who were the supervisors who voted to accept the appeal? the three, i guess.

>> the three voting against were supervisor farrell, supervisor elsbernd , and supervisor carmen chu. commissioner antonini: interesting. >> was there a board of appeals report? >> the board of appeals considered three items that might be of interest to the commission during the first was a building permit for new construction at 1231 u conn. i want to highlight it because it was in the eastern neighborhoods. they have an existing warehouse structure. they also had concerns about the property windows that we had on their property. the continued it for one month to discuss the matter.

they allow time to consider that. the second was a jurisdiction request for 3423 market street. this was the matter that was before this commission on a conditional use authorization in december to modify the approval. we have had a history of enforcement action with the property. we had advised them as their right to go to the board of appeals, request jurisdiction, and request that the board reduced the amount under 176, and they were assessed at to and $50 a day. there is some flexibility there. for unknown reasons, no one showed at the hearing to request the jurisdiction request. extremely frustrating for the department. we will continue our enforcement

action on a project. the last item was an appeal for 1566 haight street. this also resulted from a jurisdiction request. we had a no violation penalty with an outstanding penalty amount of about $56,000, and the board of appeals can modify that penalty. they modified the number of days and the amount to be approximately 700 -- $7,000 in penalties. they have recommended that we bring them before the commission sometime this summer in order to legalize the work they had done. that concludes my report. thank you. commissioner sugaya: mr. sanchez, on the property -- what was the -- >> it was a dance studio.

>> ok, commissioners, if we can move forward. item #5 -- 2011.0149i. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. babson's first opens at the mission bay location. the fast-track m.b.a. program is designed to allow business professionals to earn their mta. -- mba. post secondary institutions and hospitals have an application on file with the planning department.

we're proposing to occupy less than 100,000 square feet. upon review of the imp, the commission did not hear a hearing on the abbreviated imp. staff believed it contains all necessary information and recommends the commission approved. if you have any questions, will be happy to answer them. >> thank you. president olague: project sponsor? project sponsor? on this item? they are not here. so, commissioner borden. oh, ok. great. we would ask if you want to add anything to the discussion? >> no. president olague: ok. great. if we have questions, we know

you are here. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: in the program, it reads quite highly about the rigorous educational value. they cannot own any real estate. all their people are working professionals. with that, i would move to close the hearing on the i.m.p. president olague: is there a second? no, there is no need for a second. i forget sometimes. with that, the hearing is closed. >> thank you. the i.m.p. has been closed with the indication there is no public hearing. thank you. commissioners, we now move forward to general public comment with a time limit of 15

minutes. the public will address you on items of interest to the public within the jurisdiction of this commission. each member of the public may address you for a total of three minutes. the entire category does have a 15-minute time limit. president olague:harland hoffman? >> good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me? i'm here to address an issue that is on the calendar for next week but was hurt last week before the historic preservation -- but was heard last week before the historic preservation commission. i have documents for liberty hill that codifies hal liberty hill came about and also documents some confusion that

occurred last week but i thought -- that i felt frustrated about, regarding trash enclosures. the issue is distorted from being heard by the historic preservation commission because of an issue regarding the portability of the trash enclosures. i have just one sheet, to look at these. and i have 14 or 15 copies of what i am talking about right now, regarding the bpw. the issue falls through the cracks and it is frustrating. last week, staff and planning was saying because the trash in disclosure is portable, it does not go to the historic preservation commission, when in fact by dpw rules, it says the

trashing closure has to be pinned down, to be permanently in place. it is frustrating when one department creates loopholes so someone can support the intent of all law. also, i would like to tell you about liberty hill, regarding a number of things to come under the purview of various departments. our community is clean. we do not have litter accumulating. the historic nature of the community is preserved. does anybody have any questions at the moment? president olague: not at this time, thank you. we will review the information. i think we have a lot here. we have quite a bit to review the you have forwarded to us. >> thank you so much.

commissioner sugaya: i was going to say at public comment, the commission isn't -- i don't want to say "allowed," but i guess that is the word. >> the commission may not engage you in conversation. >> what about prior to? is it proper to try to address an issue with the commissioner? [chime] >> you can reach out to them either collectively or through me. it is up to them if they will respond. they're not obligated to do so. president olague: it is on the

calendar next week. >> madame president, i am here with a very brief request today. the community vision of the northeast waterfront, i think you all got copies. the organizations have been talking at through hope this but our real interest is to work with you, the staff and other things that can be done right away. america's cup connecting the waterfront, what i like to request is that you calendar a brief presentation to the commission not so much to go through this, but to focus on very specific implementation strategies. one is parking. and if i can put this on the overhead projector. you're a member may remember these maps.

and how efficiently it is being used. since the plan came out, we have talked to a number of honors that were excited about working with us and with you. and some of the new things that are coming out to find and use parking more efficiently. this also dovetails with similar recommendations that are in your fishermans wharf plan. when we talk to the parking garage owners, they say it is important to have that with the meetings. another issue is the washington street activation that you talked about. it is particularly the block on the north side between maritime plaza and golden gate. we want to get things right away on the end of the bloc and do some food trucks. like the things you're doing at the civic center and really get

people excited about this. if there is a place where you can get affordable food. again, we think that is very doable very quickly. you want to talk of restoring the connections that don't exist. and also the things that allow people to reduce the complex. the focus of this discussion would be really on a few pilot projects that would excite and gave the city. there would be ones where there are broad consensus on. we would not be discussing the contentious issues that came up in either of those discussions. what we have to offer as a lot of community support for these kinds of programs, and show people what we can do between now and then.

>> i hope it is public comment, general public comment. president olague: provided it is not on the agenda, you can talk about it. >> one of the questions i have -- i am betty foote. for mr. sanchez, i requested the possibility of wide variances are not separated from environmentalists. from a normal citizen to a normal resident, the boundaries are blurred. i think would be clearer to us to be able to speak to building issues in one side of our mind

and environmental issues on the other. but to me, personally, they seem to blur. if i am not clear, please be gentle with me. this is a question. the other thing is quite discouraging since i have been working so hard to understand and neighborhood groups. how the neighborhood process works, how the planner's work. how we keep up with the street from a citizens' standpoint. my brain has trouble keeping up with that. i went to planning a couple days ago and found that there was a letter written as if you had already made a decision on a project that is very important to us. it was written in the past tense as if you are in the hospital but already dead.

it seemed like this was just a rubber stamp. i just wanted to know what that does to the heart and spirit of the citizen. i wish you would wait until you hear us. the other thing is, site visits in the file, to me, from a 24-7 president standpoint, a site visit is very light by a person in the environmental impact relman. it says there could be no significant effect, and we have to say as residents, it could not be in the nisei it could. i think it is not very comprehensive. from our standpoint, i think

maybe something could be done on the site visit. how do you know, how does the left hand know what the right hand is doing as far as cumulative decisions that affect transportation and quality of life. last week, a decision was made. today there will be a decision made on the project. there is the fisherman's wharf public realm plan. [chime] president olague: think you. >> i wanted to talk about the transition to paperless records in the department issues that haven't even thought very well through. i am not sure when, but a couple years ago, the department transition to keeping as many

records as possible electronically and not printing them out in the files. the general public hasn't been really cold. i am a pretty sophisticated general public. and if i am having problems understanding what this means, and are a lot of people that don't. if you send the staff, i went through a case dockets my case that i have with the commission today and not next week. i had an involved discussion with the staff on a particular issue. and when i pulled the file, it wasn't in there at all. how come this issue isn't even in the file? the answer was, i sent an e- mail. i pulled it out, and sure enough, and i had a lengthy discussion with a particularly germane issue that was not in

the file because i have been told if you want to have it in the record, you must print it out in the mail at or delivered to the department. the records for cases that happen in the past, people that pulled them up and did not have whiles anymore. they have sketchy documents. there is so much in the e-mail that doesn't wind up in the file after a case is approved. someone coming up to the file five years from now, a staff person trying to find it. a member of the public will not have any of the things that were sent through e-mail. the planning department doesn't give any notice that the files on a case are electronic. when you go down and fill out the record form, it doesn't say. you must request the electronic records.

if you wait until the case report comes out a week in advance in the ask to go to the file, you'll not have any electronic records. i understand the electronic files have got an overwhelming. when you had to type a letter out, he did not send a letter saying thank you for accepting my phone call. now people do bizarre things. you have one thing of substance and maybe 10 the irrelevant females because people feel they need to say thank you for talking to me or whatever. the planning department has to go through a process. every notice that you give when someone close the case has started. if you don't put it in writing, it is not on the record. president olague: any additional public comment?

public comment is closed. >> you're beginning your regular calendar. commissioners, you are on item number seven. [talking over each other. ] >> i just wanted to note that this case has an associated variants as well. any action on the environmental review will have to come first. >> good afternoon, president olague. >> would you like me to call 7 and 8?

>> yes, please. >> we've called item 7, next is item 8. >> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. the item before you is an appeal for the preliminary declaration for the proposed development at 1255 columbus avenue, case number 2008. to analyze the potential impact of approximately 16,000 square feet, built in 1954, and construction of the mixed use building. the proposed new building will include residential units, 6200 square feet. the proposed parking garage

would be accessed from columbus avenue. we sent a package containing an executive summary, appeal letter, and planning department responses. the issues raised include traffic, transit, a pedestrian and parking impact as well as neighborhood compatibility and impacts to resources. the planning department's response is that it is adequate for the following reasons. it does address traffic impact and pedestrian impact. it discusses the parking impact resulting in the proposed project while noting the parking is not considered an impact. and it addresses the product -- a project's compatibility -. we do not advocate the approval

or disapproval of them describe it. they prepared, analyze the environmental effects and determined that it would not result in significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated. the appeal letter does not raise new physical environmental issues, nor does it provide a substantial evidence for a finding of a significant environmental impact. the issues raised about the concern and the variances for the commercial of street parking requirement. we find that these communications and not raise issues sufficiently analyzed. no substantial evidence of the significant environmental affect would warrant preparation. staff recommends that