proposed to continuance for april 4, 2013 so what was a long calendar is now short and that's all i have. i have no speaker cards for the continuance. >> okay. is there public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i would like to continue items one, two, and three -- well, one and two to the dates specified. three indefinite continuance, and also continue item number 15 to march 21, item 16 to march 7 and item 17 to march 21. >> second. >> i have a question. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask that item 16 be potentially continued out further out and i have

questions that i affect that and i left a message with the supervisor's office and i mentioned it to ms. rogers. >> the motion is for one week. we can continue to the seven and if the questions aren't answered we can continue it next week. >> we have a motion and a second. >> that's right. >> shall i call that. >> yes. >> on the items proposed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> yes. >> that passes 5-0. next up is the consent calendar. all items are considered to be routine for the planning commission and acted upon a single roll call vote for the commission. there is no separate discussion unless the public or staff requests and the item is removed from the consent calendar and considered

as a separate item for now or a neurohearing. case four at 225 30th street request for conditional use authorization. case five at 795 folsom street request for conditional use authorization and six for 3221 20th street and request for conditional use authorization and case seven at 975 bryant street. just to clarify item seven for 975 bryant street was considered on february 14, 2013 and following testimony the commission continued the matter to this date. the motion for today under concept is for disapproval. commissioners i

think there is interest to pull a couple of items off of consent. >> is there any public comment for the items on the consent calendar? do you want to come up up? >> yes, i would like to remove item four, the request for conditional use authorization. from the consent calendar please. >> okay. >> and your name? >> my name is michelle carter. >> okay. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> i would also like to remove number four. my name is wendy beam. thank you.

>> hi, i am mark dennis and i would like number four removed from the consent calendar. >> it only takes one person. >> any additional public comment for matters on the consent calendar? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> and i would like to ask that we take off item seven from consent. >> commissioners this is taken off and heard at the beginning of the regular calendar? >> yes. >> commissioner borden. >> i move to approve items five and six on the consent calendar. >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to approve items five and 6a

under consent. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> president fong. >> aye. >> that passes six-zero. zoning administrator what say you on 6b. >> item 6b and close the hearing and request the variance. >> commissioners that places you under questions and matters. item eight consideration of matters for draft minutes. >> any comment? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> no, i was pushing for the next item. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve draft minutes for february 14, twawr 13. commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye.

>> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> president fong. >> aye. >> so moved that passes unanimously and places you item nine, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner moore. >> on a very positive note i would like to share with the commission walked by broad walk street and the garden and not everyone was on the commission at that time and it turned out beautiful. you should go by there. it is the example how to do it if you have the right landscape architect and the plans. it looks fantastic. on another note my concerns about case signage continues. i walked by a stunning example at the corner

of sutter and montgomery where i am sure we all work to count 22 chase signs on the facade. it's a former location of charles char scrab and a broken firm and happens to be a san francisco firm and with chase moving in there are 22 signs and in every column space there is one sign so as the arcade goes on you have a sign for column spacing and then on the inside between lit signage on the store front you have blue atm's and everything else which comes through it. i would like the department to put on things to look at. it's not what the

code prescribes. last i heard of a wonderful story and veteran's common and the mission street building which is the jeweled building with the roof top garden bar was adapted to accept about 20 -- i'm want sure on the number, veteran vouchers of home units negotiated by former supervisor dufty and i think that is a wonderful and positive thing to share with each other. it's described in the paper today if anyone wants more detail on that. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i read in interest about the story i think the chairperson of yahoo that ask employees not work from home anywhere and in the future go to their campus to work, and being in the line of work i am it's pretty impossible for someone

to work from home so i can't comment on -- unless they're equipped and have the patients go to the homes. i can't comment on tech businesses but seems to me in a creative type of atmosphere you would not as much interaction for employees face-to-face and you can multi-task and network and do a lot of things that aren't easy to did if you're at different locations and the other thing i would suggest being a san francisco resident and having a business here would be as we know many of the employees at these companies are san francisco residents and have to commute to the campuses and i think bee see the results of these with the buss and other things going through the city, but it might be wise for some of the companies, and i think we're seeing more of it to relocate

the work force to san francisco or the whole force and seems to be working for other companies in san francisco and they're figuring out you don't need the campus. you can have people in vertical environments and just be as productive and the campus is a disadvantage because there is no public transportation. everyone is sort of locked in there more or less figurativity during the during of the day and probably not as good as it could be but that is my personal decision. i'm not making a decision for these firms but makes sense wasting an hour for everyone to commute to the campus in san francisco and not everyone but a significant part of the work force could be better sense in more productive ways. >> thank you. any additional commissioner comments,

questions? next item please. >> commissioners that will place you under director's report director's announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. the one announcement i have for today the supplemental budget request will be in front of the budget and finance committee next wednesday at 11:00 a.m.. we will be presenting similar presentations to what we gave you. we have been working with the budget analyst on the details of that and hope to have final agreement before then but we will try to move forward as quickly as possible after the hearing to get the full approval. that's it. >> on item 11 there was no

historic preservation hearing. >> thank you. amy rogers from the planning staff. i have your report on land use related items. this week at the land use committee they followed up on supervisor farrell's legislation for the subdivision code. this was following up on a hearing they had on february 28. since then the members of the board have engaged the public and stakeholder to potentially revise the proposal. one member of the public spoke on this and the item that garnered the most discussion was the western soma ordinances and this commission voted unanimously approval to the board and this commission made several changes and

adjusted zoning to allow new night time uses and housing and this provision was kept by the land use committee. this commission also created a grandfathering provision on this 11th street corridor. this provision was removed this week by the board committee. supervisor kim's office is coordinating negotiations with the property owner and the entertainment committee to potentially change the product from a residential project with one with commercial and office houses. number three, this commission recommending changin zoning for several properties for prop c. no changes were made this week. you changed the benchmark for historic buildings. this was also kept by the board committee and you added an objective and policy

to the land use chapter of the plan to acknowledge the need for continued planning under the central corridor process. again this provision remained intact at the committee and lastly you asked that the board explore a legitimatization program for eastern soma and no program was adopted this week but there was approximately an hour worth of public comment. during the comment supervisors wiener and chiu were concerned about trade off of impact fees and especially for the portion that goes to transit and infrastructure and the rates for the major developments. supervisor wiener expressed concern about grandfathering the residential project at 11th street due to impacts on the intraim industry and all of the supervisors were unclear about

impacts for the potential grandfathering of the academy site as related to further discussions for a development agreement between aau and the city. regarding the last item, th use committee did add this for the project and while at the same time they asked staff for more information and lead them to remove the grandfathering provision next week. this resulted in a new amendment from supervisor wiener to change the impact and affordable housing mechanism for the projects. projects would now pay the full tier two fees and afford tier a affordability instead of tier b. this would provide for increased affordability but not as high levels from the commission and this would ensure no loss of

impact fees. these amendments are still up in the air. the committee may rescind some of the provisions after hearing from our doesn't and asked us to look into three years and capacity and projection for the major development sites within the planned area. they asked for information how the impact fee and affordable housing mechanism has worked so far in the eastern neighborhoods planned area, and lastly they asked for more information from us regarding how the grandfathering issue will or will not impact potential discussions with the academy of art regarding overall development agreement. so we will look into those items and report back to the committee. the committee expressed a desire to move the item out of committee after next monday's hearing if possible, and also at the land use committee this week was a central subway extraction

site and the demolish of the theater and it would allow the rebuild of the project that this commission previously approved. you approved the ordinance in associated conditional use authorization and valentine's day at the land use committee this week there was 30 minute of public comment of the public discussed issues such as the preparation of ceqa documents that cleared this project, cost in disruption of removal of the machine versus leaving it under ground, many of the issues you heard when it was before you. president chiu asked for the staff to clarify the planning issues and staff to confirm that the project would not exceed the height of the existing building and you remember that both the conditional use authorization and the sud require preparation

of a detailed roof survey of the existing building and specify new building not exceed that height. on tuesday the full board of supervisors approved on reading supervisor wiener's motion for the car ordinance and they recommended approval with modifications. the supervisor agreed with the modifications and scheduled a meeting with our staff and mta to talk about possible enforcement of parking regulations in the code by the sfmta instead of the planning department. and they made two

appointments this week so there are a few items, just 2 i would like to tell you about for new introductions at the board this week. the first is a police code amendment so this will not be brought before this commission unless requested by the commission or the commission president. this is sponsored by supervisor wiener and clarify permits and procedures as well as expand and enforcement procedures with the entertainment commission place of permits. it would include limitations to the live permit and such as allowing dj's and permit to include out door spaces so this item will not be scheduled unless requested. the second item will be before you in 90 days because it's an amendment to the planning code and sponsored by supervisor cohen and application meetings for certain projects in the

pdr1 buffer district and with that that concludes my report for this week unless there are questions. >> thank you. commissioner wu. >>i wanted to ask more about western soma. you said one of the issues that the board was concerned with the tiers, the trade off between levels of affordability and impact fee. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so i think i just want to request if you end up preparing some materials if you could send those to us also. i assume it's a chart showing the trade off in the tiers. >> of course we can send that to the commission. >> and you said there is analysis of how it's been working so far in eastern neighborhoods. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places you -- >> the board of appeals and there were two items and the first one is on oakdale avenue.

they upheld the permit and they sought to reduce the size of e building but there were concerns from the neighborhoods how they were doing the work and mitigations for air quality issues so there is appeal from the neighborhood on that. the board upheld the permit but they didn't have a condition to do a soil study. there was a rehearing request in the permit and the appellate noted some facts over a day over two after the hearing the project sponsor continued work, remove paint, probably lead paint without containment and additional demolition. a inspector was called out and they were barred from entry and they were intimidated and san francisco police department responded toed scene and this was reported to the board of appeals last week

and they felt there were issued and voted for the rehearing request and scheduled for april 10. another item at 26th and terraville and for a tenant improvement and not routed to planning. it was going from personal service use to professional service use. there was appeal on the permit as well as related mechanical and plumbing permits. each side had 28 minutes to appeal their case so it was quite a lengthy hearing that evening. this was in the new one that the board of supervisors had adopted and at the time it was before you we made a recommendation regarding the use categories because if you look at professional and business use in the table it says principally permitted but if you look at the street controls it's not considered active ground for use so it's

not allowed only with the conditional use authorization. we wanted to use more explicit. it was the recommendation of the department, of this commission, however the board of supervisors didn't accept that change so the table -- it's confusing where it looks like it's principally permitted but in reality it's a conditional use authorization so this was pointed out to the parties last week. when we became aware of this we requested that the board of appeals actually deny the permit because it needed the conditional use authorization if they relocated there. the board continued the item for them to provide additional item because they're arguing they're a financial service use given how they operate. they're a insurance company but they said they offer financial service so the board continued that and that's all i have to report. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, now you're under general public comment. at this time members of the

public may address the commission with respect to the non agenda items. you can address the commission with specific agenda items during that time. i have a speaker card. >> just a reminder this is general comment not on today's calendar. linda chapman. >> linda chapman. i wanted to tell you a little bit about what happened last week in our meeting. we had several people speaking on knob hill housing and tearing down the historic church. a number of people on the panel are people with a long organization with the church in one way or another. our young urban

planning student was a student at the head start there. it was referred to as the methodists and people working on this are methodists or alums. the person that gave the history of the church which he left me which i will read you a little bit of. calvin welch was coming from [inaudible] and steve taker stepped in and he explained how funding can be done for this project. tndc is unable to come forward because of the threats from the developer and they have to give safe harbor and they stepped in for them. and natasha gave a little history of the

church. there were the first protestant church west of the rockies and it memped with another church. i was there at the end of the closing of our church. our congregation memped with park presidio and we fought to keep our building to continue the legacy in the community through a nonprofit program although they knew they couldn't continue as a congregation. we wanted to use the building for the community and put forth proposals. in the end they were voted down and went to the annual conference to sell. this was considered -- there wasn't a time there wasn't a developer who wanted to buy it and financially capable we heard.

i heard about bethany and from reverend norman thong when i talked about this project and they actually had the ability to do it, but they were turned down, maybe by one individual up there. since there there were one or more that actually want to do this project and it's most unfortunate all of this also information is given out how they demand said it be sold for money and no developer was able and i will come and talk with you more another time. we will leave the photographs of the buildings that aren't demolished but those people are working -- >> thank you. next speaker please. general public comment. >> save the tree. jeffrey leebwitz. today was reported that legislation for the james

herman cruise terminal at piers 30-32 has been picked by the assembly member mr. tang. i wanted to bring that to your attention because as a san franciscan this alarms me. i think you will see it in comments about the story a direct assault on the waterfront on their authority and the act and the plan and i think we should be alarmed by this because that particular legislation was to preserve the waterfront and the environment. you have another item on the calendar. i will be back to comment on that but i think we should pay very close attention to this legislation and i think that san franciscans get in touched with the newly elected assemblyman and let him know

how delicate and important the bay is to us and the bay front. i wanted to bring that to your attention if you have not read that story. thank you. >> my name is jerry wolf. i apologize to the commissioners for this. i was here today -- which i will take a moment for, for the consent calendar of 975 bryant, orchard supply hardware -- >> we pulled it off -- >> how does that work? >> it will happen under the regular calendar which is the next -- >> within the hour and a half. >> so it will be heard today? i apologize for that. thank you. >> any other general public comment? okay. public comment is closed. next item please. >> commissioners that places you -- >> we're going to do --