>> like to welcome everyone to san francisco's planning commission regular hearing for thursday, november 29th, 2012. please be aware that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you would like to speak on an agendized item please fill out a smear card. and when speaking before the commission, please state your name for the record. at this time we'd like to take roll. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here.

>> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833

through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there is a request from the sponsor and supervisor to continue to december 13th, 2012. and that's all i have. >> okay. is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner antonini. >> i am present. [laughter] >> and i would like to move continuance of item 1, item 2,

item 3, and item -- those specified in item 15 to december 13th. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. and places you under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar considered or 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, the 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. item 5, case no. 2012.1142c, 2815 diamond street, request for conditional use authorization.

item 6, case no. 2012.1327t, amendments to the planning code modifying section 726.52 to permit a personal service use on the third story and above with a conditional use authorization [board file no. 12-0880]. item 7, case no. 2012.0543t, municipal code miscellaneous technical amendments, fee changes, clarifications and corrections ordinance. that's all i have. >> is there any public comment on the three items on the consent calendar? good afternoon, commissioners. my name is henry karnilowitz, [speaker not understood]. item 1 is the one i'm going to speak about. this was for a client who went in to put in a -- >> excuse me, you need to speak to the continuance only. if you wish to speak to the item, you ask that it be

removed? i thought it was for the consent. >> for the consent, yes. >> if you want to speak to it or have a question about it, pull it off the consent calendar. no, i want to say i support it. >> thank you. i just want to say thank you for the supervisor david campos for putting this through. that's basically what i'm here for. >> thank you. thank you. >> is there any additional comment, public comment on item on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner borden. >> i move to approve the items on our consent calendar. >> second. >> on that motion to approve items 5, 6 and 7 under consent, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yee. aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye.

>> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places you under commissioners questions items and matters. item 8, consideration of draft minutes of regular meeting of november 1st, 2012 and draft minutes of regular meeting of november 8th, 2012. >> any public comment on draft minutes? commissioner antonini? >> seeing none, move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt minutes of november 1st and november 8th of this year, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. and places you under item 9, commission comments and questions.

>> commissioner antonini. >> thanks. three things briefly. in regards to the subcommittee for secretary search, we have heard from department of human resources in regards to the classification, and we are scheduling a meeting of the subcommittee in the near future to try to go over this item and see if it's -- we're going to be able to move forward at this time. >> i'm sorry. that is out of order. we're filing an appeal. do you have an update on that? >> well, i don't have an update -- no, on the appeal. i just know that i'm reporting that i'm in receipt of something that came from them, but i don't -- you know, i'm not speaking about what our actions are going to be, just reporting on what i've received. so, we will deal with that -- in subcommittee we'll discuss the other items, but i just wanted to make the public aware

that we are in process of working on this. because this is not a calendared item, of course. number two, a couple of articles in yesterday's chronicle dealing with land use and we'll end up with the proposed arena on piers 30 and 32, written by john king, the architectural editor. i thought it was a well written article, but i can assure at least from my point of view mr. king expresses some concerns about the environmental review and its speed. and i can say that expedient and complete and thorough are not mutually exclusive, and you can do something and certainly i would expect the same analysis to be every bit as thorough. and this would be the case with any e-i-r, but that does not preclude it from moving in an expedient manner if it can be so done. and the other very interesting

article by john wildermuth, very excellent journal on the housing wars, key to city's diversity, that's the title of it. he does talk a little bit the years of protest. it's well written, but a little self-laudatory in that we have a lot of problems, still a city which once had a huge middle class and had lots of families with children and had some of the highest sale prices of anyplace. we have to differentiate. i think these things he mentioned have done a lot of good things, stopping free ways from chopping up the city, shopping another western addition destruction as happened in the '60s, but there also is a price that sometimes -- some of these things have perhaps been carried to extremes and they have added into higher prices and more process, and some of the woes we have today. so, there's always a happy medium. but i thought it was an interesting article and i would urge you to take a look at it

if you haven't already. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> we had an item on our consent calendar which raises an issue which i could not discuss in the context of consent, but which raises for me an issue i would like the department to focus on. i am talking about the 2815 diamond street atm where i personally believe that atms are starting to become more billboards and oversized signs for particular advertising for the bank [speaker not understood] rather than saying there is a convenience machine with a logo which identifies what you're supposed to do. this has been going on now for quite a few months, actually for way over a year. i raised that question months before when i saw the significant changes on the california montgomery street side for the bank of america where two or three or four atms

look like a huge bill board rather than what they're supposed to be. i question that and i would like the department to find a small slot to investigate as to whether or not we need to amend or what these particular atm is can or should be. it speaks to alteration and architecture and it speaks to advertising which i think we normally look at under different rules. that's problem number one. on the positive side, i just came back from venice, italy where i had the good fortune to attend the 13th architectural [speaker not understood] which is an international event which occurs every two years and obviously one of the most spectacular cities in the world. what i want to talk about is not the travel experience, but what the united states did in response to the general heading of the [speaker not understood] common ground. in the past [speaker not understood] deals with architecture and focuses on the different countries. obviously the u.s. has

obviously great contributions and high-rise buildings and that was for many years a reoccurring theme by which we really showed the promise of this country in developing high-rise buildings and pushing the design and the structural solutions pretty much to the extreme artist of world architecture. this time, though, and i am extremely happy about it, we really participate in the discussion about common ground. and skipping fast forward to the u.s. pavilion, we chose the response to being spontaneous interventions which focused on citizen and individual-driven innovations and improving the urban environment. and can you having to the point, san francisco featured very prominently was [speaker not understood], with urban ar tour and urban gardens, was shared space. many of the projects were identified by name and our own,

our very own david winslow was featured when he was participating as a private architect with linden alley. this is just one of many, it was beautifully put together, all the design, [speaker not understood]. and i was really proud. and i hope that somewhere on the web all of you will take a moment to see how good we looked. >> commissioner sugaya. >> another piece from the chronicle. it's actually sunday datebook and it's in their way back machine column. this goes back to 1987, november 20th. i'll just read it. it is pertinent to the planning process. it says "november 20th, czar -- charlotte [speaker not

understood] has lost the fight to prevent her neighbor from blocking her view of golden gate bridge. san francisco board of appeals by a 5 to 0 vote reversed a planning commission -- reversed a planning commission vote against the fourth floor rooftop addition by david and andrea ross en. robert feldman, director of the board said, there's no way to build anything in san francisco without blocking views, and the board reiterated last night its often stated position that neither california courts nor the statutes protect views." >> any additional commissioner comments or questions? okay, next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place you under the director's report. item 10, director's announcements. >> no announcements that i'm aware of today that i've received from john who is currently out of town

representing the department elsewhere. sorry, i'm jeff, director of [speaker not understood] standing in for john. there is a director's report in your package that identifies it. a couple matters. one, milestone achievements, those being recognition of staff that have been here for long, dedicate and had contributory periods, a number for five years. davidal enbecause, 15 years. lulu wong, remarkable 30 years. there is also a description of two grants that will department has also recently received. * >> commissioners, item 11, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners, andrea rodgers, planning department staff.