commissioner olague: please turn off pagers, cell phones, and the electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. >> that would include me. [laughter] commissioner olague: we had a hard time hearing. i was not in the microphone. i was asking everyone to turn off your cellphones and pagers. with that, the roll call. commissioner antonini is absent

today. item one is proposed for a continuance. it is proposed for continuous anuntil september. it is proposed for a continuance until september 15, 2011. item 34 proposed changes to restaurant, video stores, and related is proposed for a continuance until october 6, 2011. i am not aware of any of your items on the calendar proposed for a continuance. -- of any other items on the calendar proposed for a continuance. >> i will call the speaker card. if there are additional speakers on the continuance calendar, now

is the time to speak to that. joaquin welch. >> good afternoon. i am a tenant at 405 valencia street. i am here to thank you for the opportunity to provide a continuance so that we can study adding the cell phone tower, the effect on our health and safety and what it would do to our community. thank you. commissioner olague: are there any additional speakers on the continuance calendar? c. non, this item is closed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i moved the items the mood for a continuance. commissioner olague: items one,

too, and three have been proposed for a continuance. those items are continued as they have been proposed. the next category on the calendar is the consent calendar. the matters for consider items 4 through 10. they are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by roll call vote. members of the public may address the commission if they want to pull it off of the consent calendar. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless the item is pulled off of the consent calendar by a commissioner, the public, or staff. if that happens, the item will be removed and considered as a separate item at a future hearing. the items include the request to develop a full-service

restaurant and would develop a full-service restaurant in a baking, commercial spaces formerly occupied by a hair salon and health food store on polk street in the commercial district. item five is for ninth avenue. it is a request for consencondil use operation to convert space previously occupied by an insurance office to be converted into a pediatric dental and orthodontic office. it would be two-story mixed use building. item six -- i will take the clock of myself. >> it is for 3150 gary boulevard, the request for a

conditional use authorization for retail use in a vacant commercial space of approximately 1800 square feet on the ground floor of the mixed-use building. item seven is a request for a conditional use authorization to demolish an existing 2000 square foot vacant building and establish a social service view within the residential enclave district. item eight is for 804 bryant street, a request for a conditional use the authorization to install a wireless transmission facility that consists of antennas on an existing commercial building. that is the preferred location within the service district. item nine a and b if for 144

king street. it is a request for authorization to extend approval for a proposed project for three additional years. the project was approved for demolition of an existing warehouse building and construction of an 11-story hotel with no of street parking. the proposed extension would be to september 8, 2014. item nin9b fois the request fore extension of variances previously granted under the planning code sections. the project approved under the motion is the demolition of the existing one-story warehouse building and construction of the 11-story hotel.

let me remind you as you consider the extension of the conditional use, the zoning administrators responsible for granting the extension of the variants. item 10 is 4 mission st., request for a conditional use authorization to allow small- self-service restaurant in the mission street commercial zoning district. i have no speaker cards on these items. if there is no public comment, if you can consider these items as one. >> is there any public comment on any of the items? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i moved to approve the items under consent except for 9b,

which is the call of the zoning administrator. >> the motion on the floor is for approval of items 4 throught 10 as they have been read into the record. commissioner moore: aye >> thank you, commissioners. >> i have been asked by the zoning administrator to represent him. i will ask for a continuance of b. >> with that, we move on to commissioners questions and rafters. commissioner moore: i would like to share an event with the chinatown development

corporation last friday. a group of 12 young, enthusiastic intern's took eight weeks and divided into three teams to analyze the problems of chinatown. it was a remarkably insightful analysis and interesting set of recommendations that came from students raging from the age of just graduating from high school to a genius and seniors already enrolled in college. it was a wonderful event. the planning department attended in addition to supervisor kim and people from supervisor chu's office. he was very of the. i do hope the planning department engages strongly to teach young people about urban activism, planning, and design

matters. i was very impressed. >> it might be nice to schedule a time for them to present to us. even for 15 minutes, their findings. commissioner moore: the students themselves are off to various destinations. i encourage gloria florez to keep the record of these findings as part of the base data for when this department moves into looking at chinatown. commissioner olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: during the week, i have met with the jewish home regarding their institutional master plan that is in process of the moment as well as with representatives of the california nurses association. commissioner olague: thank you. we can now proceed to the

directors report and review the past week's events. >> just one announcement today. i wanted to let you know the staff is conducting a second workshop on the chinatown- broadway street design project. that will take place on thursday, august 16, from 4:30 until 7:00 at the elementary school at 950 clay street. it will present several plans for chinatown. double the august 16 at the cordogordon lau elementary scho. >> i am from the planning department staff here to present a summary of the planning and land use activities. this will be the last report until after the break. they are about to go on recess. there was no land use committee meeting this week.

the first ordinance was the ordinance that would change the controls for the inner and outer clement as well as for a portion of geary boulevard. you heard this motion on july 14. he recommended approval of modifications. supervisor mar amended the ordinance to include your recommendations but for one. he did not remove the prohibition on for resale and pet supplies as you recommended. although he did not remove this, there was a discussion with the land use committee and the board. the board of supervisors approved the ordinance on the final reading. also before the board was an ordinance addressing limited live performance. you heard this item sponsored by supervisor mirkarimi in july. it would create a limited permit for businesses whose primary business is not performances. you recommended it with

modifications to extend an opportunity to several districts. supervisor mirkarimi did incorporate your recommendations except for one. he amended ordinance so that entertainment use is not allowed in the western area currently undergoing a community planning process. the ordinance would initially limit these performances so that they stop by 10:00 at night. after one year, the permitee may ask to extend the hours for performance. this week at the full board hearing, board president chu and supervisor farrell introduced amendments for their districts that would not permit the extension of hours beyond 10:00 for several commercial districts. supervisor farrell also amended

the ordinance to get a noticing provision where interested parties could opt in and be notified but future permit requests if they wish. the board passed the ordinance on the first reading. this week, the board also established their own response to the civil grand jury. i know you will be considering that later today as one of your items. the board this week approved the resolution the disagreed with the civil grand jury on their findings 1 through 5. they incorporated the other responses as their own. this resolution was adopted with a 6-5 vote. we have an appeal of the document for 1945. on june 16, you heard a discretionary review on the related project to convert a parking garage into a three- story residential building with

17 parking spaces and some commercial space. at the hearing, you modify the product and included additional setbacks. the russian hill community association appealed and stated the project would have a range of significant impacts not identified in the exemption. however, the appellant did not specify the exemption be considered to be inadequate. instead they asked the department respond to more than 70 pages of comments submitted during the review. these comment letters made a variety of points about the character of the site, the surroundings, the historic resources, transportation, existing plans, policies, and noise, and aesthetics. given the upcoming recess of the board and requirements for holding the term hearing for an appeal, the department had to prepare a linkedin response in short order.

the department quickly prepared a thorough response to these more than 70 pages and explained how the exemption adequately addressed each topic. this took over 100 hours of staff time to prepare. with the additional material, we again concluded the project qualifies for an exemption under section 15 332 and has no significant impact. at the appeal hearing this week, the appellant and their supporters failed to appear and provideed the board with a letter stating their continued objections to the project. after short presentations, the board upheld the cadex. there were no new planning ordnances introduced this week. that concludes my report unless there are questions. commissioner olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: we have this process where people can

appeal things. i think it is incredibly rude if they do not shot. i feel like there should be some sort of financial penalty for people that do not show up. we allow them an appeal. we do not charge the much to do so. it seems to me the onus is on them to least show up. there should be some sort of penalty. i do not know how that works out, but we can substantiate the staff time it took to prepare the appeal. i feel like we need to discourage this from happening, particularly because of the amount of time invested in the project response. it could have been invested and other issues -- and other issues where we have similar needs. i do not know if that came up at the board meeting with the members when they were considering this. but maybe it is something we should suggest that they do some sort of penalty for failure to show. but there was no discussion among the board increasmembers. we can look into this issue and get back to the commission. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you.

>> the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday. the two items of note were the draft environmental impact reports for the america's cup and sf momoa. the commission decided not to draft a letter for moma. there was only one real concern. staff made a note of the concern. for the america's cup, there was no public testimony -- relief for either of those items. the richest commission comments. they decided to continue the item, leave it open for their consideration at the next hearing. there might not be any concerns at that hearing. they wanted the opportunity to take more time to study the document. commissioner olague: thank you.

commissioners, you are now a general public comment. it has a duration of 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. keep in mind you not addressed the commission on any item listed on the counter and that he must make all of your comments within the 15 minute time limit. i do not have speaker cards unless there are cards on the rail. >> is there any general public comment on items on the agenda today? >> i wanted to comment briefly about the seqa appeal issue. we were counsel to the project

sponsor. we put in many hours and dollars of my clients time into responding to the p.o. and preparing for the hearing and showing up at the hearing. because great attention to the need for a definitive ordinance that regulates seqa appeals. we have not had one for the eight years that these appeals of gone to the board. supervisor eliot-pier tried. it ended up not being adopted. there is no current sponsor. i would encourage you to direct your staff to work with the board to develop a comprehensive appeal ordinance that would require an appellant to specify the grounds for appeal and give a time frame within which the appellant needs to submit the documentation and briefings a couple of weeks before the hearing so that the staff knows what to respond to it and what the appeal is all about. the current procedure has the appellant and planning

department staffs submitting the documentation on the same day. the staff has no idea what the appeal is about because the letter can be one paragraph. this was a one-page letter. there was a waiver for new association. they did not have to pay anything to file an appeal. it then put in motion this incredible process and 100 hours of staff time and our time to eventually respond to an appeal that was frivolous. it really calls into focus the need for a comprehensive ordinance that would regulate how these appeals are handled of the board. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you. this item is closed. we're trying to form a subcommittee around small business and the mcd issue that

came up. maybe we can look at something around ceqa to make recommendations to the board rather than just have them do all the heavy lifting. maybe we should do something along those lines. we can discuss it further. we will discuss it at a later date. if it is not on the calendar, we cannot discuss it. >> with that, we can begin the regular calendar with item 14. it is for 55 laguna street, a request for a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. i am david lindsay from

department staff. i will be presenting this case today. before i begin my presentation, i am going to hand out copies of a revised draft motion that contains a couple of additional provisions to the ones i sent out earlier in the week. i am also going to hand out copies of the costa hawkins agreement signed this morning for the record as well.

i will point out that in the revised draft motion dated august 4, 2011, the changes i am talking about that were made today are in the green type. one inserts the date on page two. in condition 11, it inserts a sentence that talks about the recommendation of a memorandum of disagreement that has been handed out to you. the 55 within a project was approved by the planning commission 3.5 years ago. the project included two housing components, a marker 8 component

of units that would be constructed and located in new buildings and in the renovated woods. the other component was unaffordable senior housing component of approximately 110 units welcoming to the senior lgbt households to be developed by mercy housing. under the original approval, 15% of the market rate units were to be constructed as on-site, below market units. the project before the commission today proposes to modify conditions 20, 21, and 29 of the planning commission motion to allow a hybrid

exclusionary -- inclusionary portion. the modification would allow the provision of approximately 32 units and a maximum of approximately 50 units of the requirement as on-site units. if less than 15% are provided, payment by the developer of the market rate component of the affordable housing feet of up to approximately dollars and 6.3 million to comply with the planning code sections 4 and 5. this change from the 50 units included in the original authorization has been necessitated by the mayor's office of housing's inability to immediately fund the senior

housing component of the project that the moh committed to in the in original entitlement process. this hybrid proposal, the mayor's office of housing will have a year to secure the additional funds to meet its subsidy commitment to the open house component improvise some or all of the remaining 18 units to achieve the original 50 on-site bmr units. the senior housing to the limit would remain 100% affordable. -- the senior housing unit would remain 100% affordable. we have met with representatives to discuss alternatives to the original proposal. the process and results of these meetings are outlined in the july 25 letter submitted to the commission by the mayor's office of housing. a copy of this is in your pockets.

the approach agreed upon has wide support from several neighborhood and community groups including the lower h aight merchants association and the housing rights committee. as of today, 35 letters and approximately 70 emails supporting the proposals have been received from individuals and organizations in addition to a resolution adopted by the market advisory committee indicating their support of the current proposal. i will hand to the secretary 15 support letters that arrived following the distribution of the commission packets as well as the 65 emails in support of the project.