starting yesterday morning have not been answered. the process appears to be stalled, and we ask you to request kelly to get it started again. what we are finally asking is that the department and by the architect and representative to meet with our architect and representatives to discuss the exterior non-structural design changes that we are requesting. these changes involve putting back the art deco elements characteristic of our neighborhood, such as porthole windows. making such changes should be achievable very quickly and without coming back to the commission again. we feel that excluding them from this process when we helped develop the original design and the previous commission two years ago adopted it was a slap in our face to our organization

and our neighborhood. we ask you to help with a relatively simple process by which we can avoid a highly inappropriate design at one of our main portholes, avoid a potential appeal, and preserve the spirit of cooperation that for years has existed between the park and the department commission. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> before we go forward, if i could make an announcement -- generally, when we had certification, we have a special category for public comment on items that have been close. that is not on this calendar. because it is not, i would recommend that you go through your general public, the category and we open a public comment category for comments on this certification items. that would be for items 10 and 12.

but i would recommend that you complete this public comment category without those, and then we open another public comment category to allow comments on this two items. >> so i will be back. >> thank you. >> linda chapman from nabi hill. i wanted to continue a subject i have mentioned before, which was concerned about the members of my community being pre-empted. they are considering being pre- empted by someone who will say they represent neighbors or this mysterious entity which calls itself from time to time the navajo coalition. i came in here for 1645 pacific, and i saw quite a few residents in the area who were concerned.

then, i saw an assertion that david chiu , the supervisor, and the neighbors had made an agreement, and here it is, and this is your marching order. i do not think -- i think the first of all, if something like that is happening, maybe you should consider consulting the attorney because the board of supervisors has a role where the appeal, not in the process of making the conditions in the first place. then, i saw something rather similar, without maybe the signed agreement in which i heard that lower pulp neighbors and middle hold neighbors supporting use of affordable housing. that did not happen, and i saw quite a few people who saw your notices and believed that the notices meant that they could come down and speak to you who actually lived in the area appeared somebody who lives

blocks away will say they are speaking on behalf of the community, but they are not speaking on behalf of that community, as those people told you. i am going to read from the minutes. it said the neighbors decided to postpone a vote until middle" neighbors has heard about it. then, it would say the development was agreed to conditions requested, and the conditions were not stated at this meeting. was there a committee meeting, a board meeting? there was not. there are no committee meetings because nobody is interested in land use. i am really concerned about the nob hill coalition, as they call themselves. people who hired alice barkley. they do not have meetings or memberships. they have nothing. they negotiated -- took advantage of the zoning

administrator, the supervisors, and everyone else, to negotiate conditions based on nothing. while there were notifying the whole community that they were opposing. they were sending out e-mails, and we oppose the project. 3000 supporters who are going to ratify what we said. you will receive some conditions proposed by the novel association based on historic use -- [buildings -- [bell rings] commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. representing carpenters local. just some information, i welcome some projects i would like to share with you.

one that has been sitting there for quite some time, finally crescent heights project on 10th and market street. i forgot how many units it was until i ask again, it was 754. i thought might years were going bad. that is fantastic. finally, it is getting going. just this morning, i was told december 1, it was a long way to market street. 1844 market street and octavia. that is where the crane has been sitting there forever. that is another one going, 132 units. things are starting to perk up for the city. with that, i thank you. i thank you for your support and for your heavy and friendly discussions we have had on all

these projects. thank you. have a good day. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> yes, just to follow up on this. i think also, 14th near the armory, there are two projects going up at this very moment. i think we had a hand in approving this commission. commissioner miguel: is there anyone else who wishes to speak during general public, on non- agenda items? if not, regular public comment is closed. >> the commission is opening another public comment category on items that have been heard prior by the commission, and the public hearing has been close. for this calendar, the two items on a calendar that will fall under this category would be items 10, which would be the certification of the final

environmental impact report for 151 to read, and 975 folsom streets, and item 12, which would be -- let me turn the page -- which would be the glen park community plans ratification of the final environmental impact report. i have two speaker cards for this category. if anyone else would like to speak on either of those items, please fill out a speaker card. commissioner miguel: [reading names] >> hello. i am here to represent the owner of the emerson flag building that adjoins the expansion.

our family has owned the building for over 60 years, since 1950, one year before i was born. clearly, it is very old. it is the headquarters of our small family business. clearly, we value the building very highly. we are delighted to have them as our next-door neighbor. our family was among the original contributors to the building of the museum. we are proud to have our family name engraved on the donor's well, and we have maintained ongoing ownership in the museum. at the same time, we want to insure our rights. while representatives of the project have verbally assured us of many of these rights, we would like them to be formally recognized in writing. in particular that the door directly facing hunt st., the second floor fire escape, the comparable windows, and our

well-known emerson flag sign will be preserved. additionally, we would like to maintain our access to the public space adjacent to our building in the event that the museum promenade takes place. we thank you for supporting neighborly relations. thank you. >> hello. we have a longer formal letter we wanted to give you as well, and i will just read the conclusion from that. the language of the eir appears to preserve the property rights currently enjoyed by our property. like the record to include our concern here as is acknowledged in the draft, the historic nature continue to the aesthetic

quality of the expansion site. we would like the planning commission and the board of supervisors to insure that the expansion project respects all the property rights and privileges. the only thing i would like to add to that is a reiteration of my cousin's, on having some sort of formal acknowledgment on the preservation of our rights, formal written acknowledgment. thanks. commissioner miguel: [reading names] >> hello. i am a student at san francisco state, and i wanted to say that i approve the community plan. i think that keeping glen park cozy main characteristics and that will increase the pedestrian transit and by the

accessibility and it is very important issue. while i generally agree the plan will result in positive change, i also believe discussion needs to be had about the policy in a plan which states that the san francisco public utilities commission and planning department should conduct a study to assess the feasibility benefits. viable daylight extremes can exist in the long run but only if there is a connection between restoration and stewardship because the good health of an urban stream cannot survive if it is neglected. when improving services in urban areas, however, placement of put the natural ground cover rate from un-moderate storm water can converge to the creek. a serious maintenance plan should be implemented to go forward. another issue that should be considered is the proposed

integrated test management program that aims to reduce populations around the creek if it turns to standing water. the sfpuc says they will fix the problem that prevents them from reproducing. although it has been stated that the compound rapidly degraded from water and is not toxic to humans, i wondered if they -- if anything has been done that is and toxic to other local species and ecosystems. the speculators should be also tested thoroughly for those environmental impacts. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> sorry about the confusion. i was expecting to speak after sfmoma.

i am director of arts and culture marketing for san francisco travel association appear in my role is to insure that visitors outside of said and cisco are aware of the rich, cultural offerings of the city and use those as a way to entice them to book their travel through san francisco. national research by the office of travel and tourism as well as americans for the irs tells us that the cultural travelers stay is longer and spends twice as much money as the non-cultural traveler. the travel industry is incredibly competitive and improving upon our access injures it remains competitive for the billions of dollars spent each year on travel. this year, after a 17-year run as readers to his favorite city, san francisco is now number two to san francisco -- as readers choice favorite city.

we have now fallen to number two behind charleston, south carolina. it is imperative that we continue to make sure that our city is seen as a top destination. the sfmoma the expansion will attract media and visitors from around the world and help us maintain our competitive edge with other great cultural destinations. the design is truly world-class. we expect it will garner much media coverage for san francisco, and as you can imagine, it will be great news for our hotels, other cultural institutions, restaurants, and, of course, the tax base. please join us in supporting the expansion. >> if i could just interrupt, this category is for public hearing on closed items. commissioner miguel: this is strictly the eir we are talking about. the project will be before us at a later time, and the comments should be directed to the project itself.

what we are considering now is the eir, whether it should be certified. >> if you want to speak to the project, can you wait until we finish with the eir's? we would very much appreciate that. if there's anyone else who really wants to speak to the eir, please come forward. for either of the items, 10 or 12. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an attorney here in san francisco. i am year on behalf of the entity that owns the w hotel. my comments are on the certification and final eir. you have a letter we submitted earlier this week on the same topic. all my clients generally are in support of the project, we feel strongly that the environmental review work has not been done

adequately. we object to the certification and final eir because of the deficiencies we identified in the draft that have not been corrected. we believe the comments were not sufficient, and the new mitigation measures that were added during the final eir process are not enforceable. we have three key concerns. first generally described as design, and what i mean by that is that the project description is not complete because we do not have a final design for this project or even a near-final design. if you look at different sections, you will see a different description of the height and bulk of the building. for example, in the project description, it describes a maximum height of 320 feet, but if you look at the aesthetic impact section, it examines the aesthetic impact of a 220-foot

project. it requires you to have a stable and finite project definition. the eir does not reflect that. we understand their continued to make changes to the building. we have no objection to that either, but you cannot certify the eir and look at the aesthetic impact without considering the final building. it makes the visual simulations themselves insufficient, and the impact on my client, having what is now a concrete monolithic wall 20 feet away from 112 of their hotel rooms that currently have a bridge views is considerable. the other area is traffic. we identified that the analysis of traffic during construction is insufficient. it has been written off as being generally considered insignificant because it is temporary, but generally insignificant does not mean insignificant in this case. during the construction time,

the estimate is that as will have to spend an additional $500,000 a year just to deal with the traffic issues associated with the construction time, and that deals with valet and loading. it also does not adequately look at long-term impact because it relies on the improvement measure that they will continue to have access when that is not actually enforceable. and you're sort out of time, so i will refer you to my letter unless you have any questions -- and i am out of time. commissioner miguel: thank you. any additional questions? if not, public comment is closed. >> just a question of clarity from me -- generally after we finish that category of questions for public comment, we take up the items themselves. do you want to delay that until we get to them on the calendar, or do you want to take them up now? >> we can take them up now.

as long as people are here move through them. >> a cake, with that, commissioners, we are now going to go into your actions on closed items. a public hearing is closed. first item before you would be item 10, case to thousand 9.0291e -- case to thousand 9.0291e -- 2009.0291e. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am from the planning department's environment planning division. the item before you is the certification of a final environmental impact report for the san francisco modern art expansion.

the project entails the demolition of the existing 67676 howard st. buildings. demolition of the vacant building at 955 folsom streets, relocation of five station one through that site and construction of a new fire station on the front 2/3 of the lot and up to 30 units of housing on the southern portion. a copy of the draft eir certification motion is before you. it was published on july 11, 2011. a public hearing was held on august 11, 2011. the 45-day public comment closed on august 25, 2011. a common response was published and distributed. after publication, the department received two letters

including the w hotel, a property owner on natoma street and a property owner on shipley street. the comments do not raise issues that have not already been addressed in the responses document. responses to the oral testimony today from the representative of the w hotel -- i would like to clarify that the product description is considered stable based upon the department's position appeared to 320-foot height that was referenced by the commager is actually a reference to the height district to the building was analyzed between 220 feet. visual simulations are adequate for the potential aesthetic effects, and the way of dealing with access, loading, and circulation are outlined in the comments and responses document

on pages 57 through 60. the eir found that the implementation of the project would result in significant unavoidable impact related to the demolition of the 935 full century building, which is eligible for the california register for architecture and its association with the market area. the eir also found significant unavoidable impact with substantial air pollutant concentrations during the construction period to accumulate significant level of particular matter. the eir found all the impact would be less than significant or less than significant litigation measures that have been agreed to by the sponsor. it suggests a reasonable range of alternatives, a project that would reduce, eliminate, and avoid the historic resource

impact here however, no alternative would avoid the impact on air quality. due to the unavoidable significant impact, the commission would need to adopt overriding considerations pursuant to the california environmental quality act should the commission choose to approve the project here at this time, staff recommends that the commission certifies the contents as adequate and complete, and that the procedures are followed appropriately through the ceqa guidelines in chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation, and staff is available for questions. >> mr. president, the item is before the commission. public hearing is close. commissioner sugaya: i move to certify the final environmental impact report as adequate. dennis second. >> commissioners -- >> second.

>> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval that the environmental impact report is complete. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. thank you. that motion passed unanimously. i take it we are now going to item 12. the glen park community plan certification of the final environmental impact report. staff is not here at the moment. may i suggest we go back and take up item 11? with that, commissioners -- commissioner miguel: 9.

>> ok, sorry. we skipped nine. we will go back to item 9, adoption to planning code amendments related to the creation of a definition of student housing. >> good afternoon. the item before you is a proposed ordinance drafting by the department that defines student housing and mix associated modifications to the planning code. the action before the commission is whether to adopt the proposed ordinance and to forward it as proposed or with modifications to the board of supervisors. we have prepared a draft ordinance that has been approved as performed by the city attorney's office, and that was included in your packet. i will start by outlining the

goals of the legislation and giving a brief overview of the history of the project as well as a summary of the new definition and associated controls. the goals of the proposed legislation are first to protect the city close the existing housing stock, while encouraging the production of new student housing. in effect with the proposed legislation, the department will have a means to control the loss of housing through its conversion to studember 2010, tr signed an order and said exempts specific student housing from inclusion very housing fees one student housing is provided to students who have demonstrated some financial need. in the planning commission with his body considers the ordinance, you directed staff to develop a comprehensive definition of student housing that could be used throughout the city and throughout the planning code. the department believes that the proposed legislation before you response to the commission's request and provides a number of additional public benefits.

the proposed code amendment creates definition of student housing based on occupancy and ownership or control. with the adoption of the proposed ordinance, we acknowledge that student housing can take the form of dwelling units, group housing as a traditional dorm, or even small a efficiency units, and these must be owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by an accredited post-secondary educational institution, and in addition to the specific definition, the department is proposing additional controls. we also consider the unique requirements for student housing and look at the reasonable mix for student housing. the proposal suggests ways to facilitate communication from standard housing back to housing if it is no longer needed.

staff continued conversation with groups such as the housing action coalition, and a concern has been brought to our attention that may merit some clarification peer department, we want to be clear, supports the prohibition of any housing tested and housing, but the commission may wish to explicitly defined in the code the point at which an untitled project is defined as a residential use prior to its actual construction. that is the language i distributed for you today. we have prepared draft language for you to consider if this is amenable. i can put it on the overhead as well. staff recommendation will be to further amend the planning code to clarify that for the purposes of conversion to sit and housing, residential uses that have been defined as such by the time for a significant fooc