planning and historic preservation committee. the department anticipates instances where it might be appropriate to relocate commemorative signs, and it makes sense to put that in the legislation now. also, under sections of the code could be used to justify the halting of other policies in the general plan. the department would like to clarify in the proposed legislation that this designation does not protect a sign from future development. that concludes my presentation. i will turn it over to supervisor campos. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioners, madam president. thank you up for your flexibility. i was finishing a public safety meeting and i was a quorum, so i could not leave. i do not have much to add, other than to explain why we

introduced this legislation. this is a sign you probably have read about. a number of articles have been read about it -- written about it. the importance is we spoke to many people in our community and it became very clear that this sign, indeed, as a historic character to the neighborhoods, that it has been an important part of the neighborhood for decades. in reviewing the existing law that addresses these issues, and i do want to thank director ram and his staff for their help throughout this process, it became clear the current law does not allow for the kind of case we have before us, were we have a sign that had historic or commemorative volume, but was not in the historic district.

so how do you protect a sign that clearly has importance in a community from being removed? so, the legislation not only tries to address this specific situation that is before us, but also tries to create a mechanism so that there -- if there are similar situations and other parts of the city where the supervisor is faced with this dilemma, we as a city can decide whether or not to provide protection to this kind of a sign. so, that is what this does. i have listened very carefully to the planning department's recommendations. i do not have a problem with the recommendations. as i understand it, at the end of the day, the matter would still have to come through the planning commission, and changing the word "historic" to "commemorative," i do not know

if that is important. the important thing is saving the sign and saving signs in the future. if removal of the sign down the road is a portrait, i am open to that, if ultimately this commission will be the one to review this decision. i am comfortable with the amendments that have been proposed. i want to thank the number of residents, many residents in my district who have taken the time to opine on this matter. some are here today. this, in my view, is legislation that empowers a community to provide to the policymakers on what is important to that community and to recognize the value that something like a sign can have in the life of a neighborhood and the history of a neighborhood. with that, i do not know if you

have any questions, commissioners? president olague: [unintelligible] we may have some. i do not know if you have time? supervisor campos: thank you. thank you for your time. president olague: is there any public comment? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is terry mills. i am a citizen of bernal heights. supervisor campos summarized the neighborhood sentiment very well. this has been a focus of community interest for months now, and we would like to see it resolved. i think other than the name of -- the name change, we think the proposed modifications are very appropriate. it is like -- this is like some sort of historic mural.

it has been living in our neighborhood for many years. the arts commission would spend all their time trying to save it, but we are in a position where you are going to do it. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: this was also in "the chronicle." for members of the public who did not see the article, there was a sign that was deemed to be advertising, so it was taken down because it had the name and logo of a product. but the sun has historic -- but the sign has historic significance with the length of tenure on that building in this community. it was not in the way. i think this is a great approach for looking at how we deal with that.

i do think there was commemoratives importance because there was a distinction that something deemed historic needs to have, and there are different standards than get involved. i think it is cleaner, if that is not the case, to have that distinction. i move to approve. commissioner miguel: second. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i do not know if i am in agreement or not. for some questions. if you change this from historic to commemorative, what criteria are we supposed to use to do that? supervisor campos: i believe it outlines the criteria in the code section. can you read that to me?

>> it depicts the cultural icon, a person, place, or thing with cultural value to the city -- that would be crossed out -- be at least 40 years old, not visually obstructive, and not be larger than the sign that was previously existence. commissioner sugaya: so, this is basically what we had before? >> you are just allowing signs that are important to your city and neighborhood. they do not have to be located within the historic sign district to be covered under this section of the code. and lastly -- commissioner sugaya: and lastly, not lastly -- i think supervisor campos mentioned it if there was

going to be removal or something of that nature, that would still be, that would still come to the commission in some form? >> i do not believe that is in the legislation, but if that is something you wanted to add, you can certainly do that. president olague: sure. >> if someone wanted to take down the sign, i do not think they are required to have conditional used to do that. if you wanted to clarify that -- commissioner sugaya: i don't know. maybe you could work with the supervisor's office to clarify that. >> if the sign is deemed commemorative, there should be other things that follow with that. commissioner sugaya: right. so, if we could add those, that would be great. commissioner borden: i agree

with that. commissioner moore: i really do not like the word "commemorative." it is more about honoring the period or what ever the proper word is, but it is not commemorative. i am not commemorating coca- cola. it is really the role this piece plays as an expression of a particular place and time. is there a better word? >> we had a few names. we thought this was the best one. commissioner moore: would you mention the other words while you are at it? >> i think one was "memorial sign." remembrancer? [laughter] president olague: some of us are ok with commemorative. commissioner moore: supervisor

campos, did anyone come up with a snappy word in your discussions? it's kind of sad -- the same dilemma, i think. helps to put it in quotation marks. >> i think maybe if staff in the supervisors office can get their heads together, use the interns that are in the back. they're young. they don't have any baggage. maybe they can come up with something. >> does anyone have a thesaurus? >> weeky beia. -- wikipedia maybe? >> i think it's great ataking t issue. i think it is something that is important. thank you. i think we're ready.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with the two modifications offered by commissioner sugaya that you add controls for taking down. >> this is great. we need to attention to this. this is great. >> and continue looking at the word commemorative, that might be replaced with something else. on that motion? commissioner borden:? >> aye. commissioner moore:? >> aye. >> commissioner moore:? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on item number 12, case number 2011.0213 for 666 haight street. president olague: i don't see staff here. should we go ahead and -- they're not here. oh, ok.

yes. staff is here. thank you. >> sorry about that, good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. i'm from the department staff. item before you is for request for use authorization. the proposal is to amend conditions of the approval attached to motion 16327 to allow the addition of an outdoor activity here to an existing full-service restaurant doing business as katz, located in the rear yard of a two-storied mixed use building within the nc1 neighborhood commercial zoning district and 40x height and bulk district. they want to add tables and chairs to accommodate up to 12

restaurant patrons on approximately 380 square foot patio within the rear yard of the restaurant. the existing rear yard sursurrounding the patio is heavily landscaped with trees, bushes, plants and stands approximately six feet in height. the patio was set back approximately 15 feet from the eastern property line, three to eight feet from the northern property line and six to nine feet from the southern property line. the existing restaurant is open from 7:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. monday through friday and 7:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. on saturdays and sundays. but intends to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 psm seven days a week should the c.u. for outdoor activity be granted. the proposed area would be open from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. and no new lighting is proposed. the site sloketted on the haight street and pierce and steiner streets. it is occupied by a

approximately 175 square feet with 27 feet of patrons on the ground floor with one dwilling unit on the second floor. the property immediately adjacent to the west is a three-story residential building containing two residential units. the property immediately adjacent on the eat is three-store comblismed use building containing five residential units and commercial space on the ground floor. in 2001, conditional use authorization was granted by the planning commission. case number 20010914c to establish the full-service quarter mile of the upper market and c.d. which requires planning commission authorization. conditions of approval attached to the 2001 c.u. authorization that allowed the establishment of the restaurant required that the restaurant servicto indoors outdoor portions of the subject property were to be inaccessible to restaurant patrons and an

attached copy 206901 conditions of the approval is included in your case report. if the subject's conditional use authorization was approved, the conditions of approval attached to promotion number 16327 will be superseded by the amended conditions of approval. currently, there are two open enforcement cases. the first case for violation of conditions of approval attached to the 2001 use authorization with respect to outdoor activity use, hours of operation and odor and garbage. the granting of this c.u. application would address the outdoor activity violation. a second code enforcement case is for operation of a large fast food restaurant instead of full-service restaurant. a large fast food restaurant is not permitted in the zoning district. that the time the project sponsor has indicated his willingness to come into compliance with both enforcement actions. niss, the conditions of approval have been modified to include a condition that requires the

project spencer operates a full-service restaurant and abate all active violations prior to permit approval and use of the outdoor area. i have copies of the modified approval for your review, the added conditions highlighted in yellow. the project spencer has submitted approximately 400 signatures collected from neighbors and restaurant patrons. as of this this afternoon, the department received one phone call and e-mail from a nearby neighbor concerned with potential noise resulting from the outdoor activity use, and requesting additional information about the 2001 c.u. authorization. the department has also received one e-mail in support of the project. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant c.u. authorization pursuant to planning code section 145.2 and 710.24 to amend the conditions of approval attached to finding commission motion number 16327 to allow an outdoor activity area and n.c.-1

district. the amended motion will amend the proposal attached. the department recommends approval for the following reasons -- the project is complementy to the existing restaurant and will not disturb or affect liveability of surrounding residences. since the existing yard is relandscaped and surrounded by a property line fence, it is set back flt site and rear property line. the hours of operation for the outdoor activity area would be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and there would be a maximum of 12 outdoor seats for patron use. the project would improve the economic diversity of the neighborhood by enhancing existing business in the area. the subject restaurant is neighborhood in use which residents and patrons can access by walking or taking public transit. neighborhood is well served by transit, therefore i modest increase in the number of customers should not impact

traffic. the project promotes small business ownership. the project meets applicable requirements of the planning code. the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is not for retail use and serves the immediate neighborhood. this concludes staff presentation. i'm happy to answer any question. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, do you have a presentation? it's up to you. you can come up to the mic, sir. yeah. >> i haven't formally prepared for a presentation but i would just like to say i am as an owner present on a daily basis on the property, so i would be very, very responsible and responsive person to any neighbors or anything, if there was ever any issues, i would respond very quickly. president olague: thank you.

is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner miguel? commissioner moore: yes -- >> commissioner miguel: i would move to approve with the new conditions. >> second. >> commissioner miguel: i think this is an interesting case in which we just reviewed changes in our restaurant definitions and this sort of brings it home. president olague: commissioner sugaya:? >> commissioner sugaya: i have one question for staff under noise. does the noise control address the issue of music or anything being played outside, do you know, the way this is written? >> i don't believe -- i don't believe there's a proposal nout for any outdoor amplified music but i believe they would have to seek a permit to authorize that. commissioner sugaya: or amplified.

president olague: thank you. i just wanted don't know i did receive a phone call from the member of the public before this hearing. denise deion is a resident of the mission and longtime activist in the community and we were talking about the definition of restaurants because she issued she had frustrations because i guess one of the n.o.v.'s related directly to these weird definitions of large fast food retail, versus what was the other one -- full service -- small restaurant -- is that it? say the two again, so we can emphasize -- >> there's full-service restaurant, large fast food restaurant and small self-service restaurant. president olague: right. and i think that's why we are grateful staff is starting to review how we define restaurants so it's a little bit more -- it's less cumbersome and easier for members of the public and

people we just want to run a decent to kind of get through the system. so, thank you. call the question. >> commissioner, the motion on the floor is for approval with the conditions the staff has offered. on that motion, commissioner borden:? >> aye. commissioner fong:? >> aye. >> commissioner moore:? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya:? >> aye. commissioner olague:? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that item passed unanimously. you are on item 15. 2001.265d. >> before you start, have i to ask for recusal. the company that i worked for prepared the historic reevaluation so, therefore, i ask for recusal. >> anybody else?

>> seconded. president olague: on the motion to recuse commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya is recused. other commissioner moore -- i'm sorry. i didn't say your name. commissioner moore: we received a letter from the public and it probably can be clarified a resident by the name of mr. philip seibert sent an e-mail late this morning. he's an visually impaired individual living in the glen park neighborhood and countered difficulties in that lie brardwroy fully access the e.i. based on that particular library not having the right equipment for him to comfortably read the thing. he asked for a continuance, however, we would like to ask staff to offer the type of typical option that exists, particularly when people have

time to read in the main library and can come and respond in writing. can you please for the record clarify that? >> thank you for that quefment i'm lisa gibson with the planning department. and i'm aware of the communication from mr. seibert and i did reply to him this morning to tell him that the draft was available for public review at the main library. the main library has a device called very easy reading devees that enables patrons to have english language materials read out loud. also we want to ensure we will provide members of the public who are visually impaired with ample opportunity to review the document, the time that they need to do that. the public review period does extend to june 13. so we hope that that will facilitate mr. seibert's needs. commissioner moore: and he will be able to respond to you in writing and he is clear about that?

>> yes, we did inform him that the hearing today is just one opportunity to provide comments, that the period extends until the 13th of june. >> thank you for raising that. maybe at some point this isn't on the calendar. i'm not going to discuss it but maybe the staff should check in with mayor's office on disability to ensure that the website is accessible and user friendly for folks with visual and hearing challenges. >> thank you w that i will begin my presentation. good afternoon president olague, members of the commission. i'm lisa gibson with the planning department. this is a hearing to receive comments on the draft e.i.r. for the glen park community plan, draft e.i.r. case number 20051004e. staff is not here toons questions today. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing and

comments and responses document, which will respond to all verbal and written comments and make revisions to the draft e.i.r. as appropriate. this is not a hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the project. that hearing will follow final e.i.r. certification. comments today should be directed to the adequacy and accuracy of information contained in the draft e.i.r., that is whether the draft e.i.r. identifies and analyzes the possible significant environmental effects of the plodge and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. commenter should speak slowly and clearly so that the court reporter can produce an accurate transcript. also, commenters should state their name and address so they can be probably identified and so they can be sent a copy of the comments and responses document when prepared. after hearing comments from the general pubblet, we will also take any comments on the draft e.i.r. by the plan commission. the public comment appear began april 27, 2011 and extend until 5:00 p.m. on june 13, 2011.

and for your information, commissioners, historic preservation commission held a hearing on draft e.i.r. may 18, 2011. have i copies of the h.p.c.'s comment letter for planning commissioners and for members of the public. copies to the public are over there and commission secretary. thank you. this concludes my presentation on this matter and unless members of the commission have questions for me, i respectfully suggest that the public hearing be opened. president olague: thank you. sally ross? >> good afternoon. my name is sally ross. thank you for the opportunity to address you. i was impressed with the draft e.i.r. when it stated that the

new development would be appropriately scaled and designed to consider the established patterns of the community, and it went on to establish patterns with the hiss tore uck survey and so forth. i'm a little taken aback by there then offered proxy of the sort of buildings that might take -- might be placed on the infill development, both on the parking lot and on the boss worth and -- bosworth and diamond street area. both of these are looking pretty large and obviously, they drew blocks in. they're not building plans but they do seem rather intimidating. especially the n.c.t. transit rezoned area of the bart parking lot, which is not really part of this but it's considered

throughout, is the -- would allow a building to be something, some 25 feet taller than its neighbors. most of the existing glen park village is only built to a standard -- built to a standard height limit of 40 feet and the buildings there are less than 45 feet. another item i would like to address is the possible bus loop that was suggested for moving around behind the bart station itself. i think it's a really good idea. also, close by that area would be an integration or better integration and improved access to the j church line. and i would like it if the -- if

the proposal or the demonstration more clearly addressed the interaction of these two items. it seems to me that the diagram that's were given show the progress walking across the area, where the bus driveway would go. i'm not sure if that's desirable or not. the way to avoid the bus line seems to go over it or go under it. either way is kind of expensive. finally, there are three development options and and i support plan b, with a little desert housing and less impact from traffic and so forth. president olague: thank you, is there any addition -- if delr