to the 30-day notice. i think for negative declarations and cad x's, i think we should probably keep it for 20 days for e-i-rs, because that's what it is now. but i understand the need to kind of make these consistent. so, i support the 30 days also on the appeal period for e-i-rs. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i think my questions on the -- following up on commissioner hillis were answered. as far as the other issue, i think staff had two points. one was the 30 days recommendation. i think i'm supportive of that. and also there was a second one on the board's consolidated or combined hearing. and i think we kind of touched upon that where a cu gets appealed, ~ then the thing would be accompanied by the c-e-q-a document or would the c-e-q-a

document have to be appealed separately also? >> our recommendation had to do with when the board is -- the c-e-q-a decision making body. ~ >> you mean like on legislation? >> right. that would be in the case of legislation also. >> okay. but on a cu, for example, then, getting back to that just to be clear, if we approved the cu and it were appealed, and that appeal goes to the board of supervisors, then if there were an accompanying c-e-q-a document, whatever it was, would that, then -- the appellant would have to file a separate appeal on that, it wouldn't automatically go like with the legislation? >> that's correct. >> okay. those are the only questions i had. i think in terms of supervisor kim's legislation, again, i haven't seen it. nobody's told me about it until today actually. and, so, i don't know what -- i

don't want to speculate what would happen at the board, supervisor wiener, supervisor kim, others can decide how they want to handle that. but if it ends up somehow coming separately, you know, we consider it i think along with any other piece of legislation coming down from the board. >> commissioner wu. >> i actually wanted to ask supervisor wiener about that point. if you as the chair of the land use committee, if you know now or want to talk at all about how it might be handled as two separate pieces of legislation. >> thank you, commissioner, for that question. , and you know, it's challenging because you probably heard in my comments at the beginning that i think, you know, it was a little frustrating to have this legislation pending as long as

it's been and then to have legislation now that hasn't even been drafted by the city attorney or approved in form by the city attorney. and that according to everyone including myself, we've had some serious and fundamental problems. so, i believe this legislation has been pending for sometime. we've gone through a significant process. i welcome, as always, any of my colleagues to engage on this legislation and to provide their feedback as it goes through the process. i've done exactly what this commission asked, and i believe this legislation is ready to move forward. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> so, i guess as other commissioners have stated, if that legislation comes to us, which it sounds like it's in the process, we will consider it at that time. i have some questions for staff about this legislation. so, this motion that other

approval action can take place even if there is an appeal pending. so, in the case that may be rec/park would take an action or the port would take an action, that seems more clear to me. is there any circumstance under which the board of supervisors would take an action before they hear the appeal? >> one example would be a landmarking. if there might be a c-e-q-a appeal pending about a particular building and a project and the hpc may have initiated a landmarking process, that process would be able to continue forward because it doesn't entail any physical changes to the property. so, that's just one i think pretty simple example of what it could -- also there are some minor approvals that maybe could happen which right now are frozen. no one could take any action. and we're saying as long as it doesn't enthai any reversal or

any physical change in property, lets the process run forward. >> okay, thank you. ~ and then my other questions i think are sort of related to this first approval action. so, how does the department or the public know what the full scope of a project is when the first, first approval action happens? it's clear to me it can't be a tree planting permit. but some examples would help to understand if it's on a single-family home, a renovation of the garage, but really is there intention to renovate the whole building? how would we know that or how would that situation look? >> so, when we receive an application for environmental review, we see how the project is defined in the application and when we make the determination of an exemption or of environmental impacts, it is based on the project description as it's written.

and everything has to refer back to the contents of the project description. then a project, say it is, you know, an addition of a new floor to a single-family home. but if the first -- if there is a permit that is being considered, it never went through dr or anything, a permit being considered say is the foundation repair, but the categorical exemption document described an addition to the single-family home, then the foundation permit would not be a permit that would -- that would involve the entirety of the action, the whole of the action as it's defined here in this legislation. >> so, and then in that case, is there another c-e-q-a determination and then that starts another 30-day period? >> there would be another -- say the -- we never got an application for the addition of

the third floor on the only project that was described was the foundation repair. and somebody got that foundation repair permit and went ahead with it. they couldn't then modify the permit to add another floor to their house. >> right. >> without a new c-e-q-a review because that's not in the project as it's described in the c-e-q-a exemption. >> okay, that's very helpful. i think that's my questions for now. >> commissioner antonini. >> yes. so, it's a c-e-q-a action that's defined or particular to the larger project, you know, that's the one that would be the trigger. someone just pointed out, a mere foundation repair doesn't do it if that's all they're doing, that would be the c-e-q-a. but if they're remodeling the whole house and adding three rooms, that would be the action that would have to have its own c-e-q-a negative declaration or cad ex and that would be the

trigger for appeal at that time. >> yes. when an action has been taken that would essentially call into question the content of the environmental document, that's the trigger for the environmental document -- >> the larger -- the largest action that would happen would be the one that would probably trigger it because that would be what neighbors would be more concerned about more than likely the foundation repair, they wouldn't care about as long as it's done well. but the large addition is the one they really would want to know. so, that answers my question. i think that makes it really clear when that trigger date is and it's for the larger project, for the one more overwhelmed encampusing project would be the one that triggered the appeal. >> commissioners, i think maybe if i could take a crack at this, every permit that gets issued has to get its own environmental evaluation which then would trigger its own separate appeal period. >> right. there would be a period if not for the foundation of 30 days. and if they begin to do an

addition to the house they would have another 30 days on that one which is the one that might actually draw more fire and that would be the one the public would be concerned about, in my estimate. and then the other thing i just wanted to bring up, this isn't necessarily question, but in the hypothetical dr, the dr -- we take dr and approve a project or don't take dr and approve a project, that is what triggers the 30 days. but that does not -- has nothing to do with your appeal to permit appeals because now you're appealing the project itself. you have to appeal the environmental piece during that 30 days. but if you don't win that appeal, you still have your right when it come -- to appeal, permit appeals de pending when the permit is pulled. you move off of environmental onto the project itself which that appeal still exists. >> yes. ~ >> okay, that's really -- i'd like to make a motion to

approve. i know commissioner moore has some comments, still. let me see if i can frame this. i'd like to approve with staff recommendations, that being the 30 days and the consolidation of board hearing. >> second. i think you misrepresent a little bit, but any staff can come up. >> you can clarify the exact nature of that second piece. >> yes, for the two recommendations in your packet are the moving -- all of the appeal windows to 30 days as you said, and also for addeded clarity for when the board is a decision maker, specifically about how materials should be submitted ~ if you wanted to raise c-e-q-a issues at that hearing. >> yeah. >> [inaudible]. >> commissioner moore. >> supervisor wiener, i saw you shake your head. would you please explain what you were agreeing with? >> i don't think it's the case that you get a separate c-e-q-a

appeal for every permit that's issued. you get one c-e-q-a appeal for a project [inaudible]. >> i think there may be some question about what the scope of the project is. >> right, right. >> so, yes, if you have multiple permits for one project -- >> if you have a project that has five projects associated with it you don't get a separate c-e-q-a appeal for each project. >> if you have a project that grows and change in scope, it would trigger the new c-e-q-a. >> you get a permit for a cottage and convert it to a new monster home, you get a new c-e-q-a review. >> i think one way to think about it is you get one appeal per c-e-q-a document. if the c-e-q-a document covers the big project, you appeal it when there is an approval for the big project. if the c-e-q-a document is talking about little piece he

of projects, which is -- could be problematic on another level, on piecemealing, then you are then -- we would then need to issue c-e-q-a determinations on each permit that is applied for. it depends what the project sponsor informs us about and tells us they are intending to do. >> sorry, thank you. public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i intentionally waited to speak last. i still sit here and don't have simple one sentence answers to the questions which have been answered by many, many people. in part, partially agreeing, three-quarter agreeing, not agreeing at all because while i agree with the attempt of the supervisor to wanting to simplify and clarify, the core simplification, clarification has not occurred yet because we

have the highest paid experts, the longest people in the department, including our legislators in this room, and we still don't really quite know. we still have to very much consult with each other and it's perhaps and perhaps not. and i am kind of like, on the receiving end saying, i'm still not clear. [speaker not understood] to me the uncertainty and frustration by those people who over the years have spent a lot of time in community activism and grassroots professionalism to [speaker not understood] the city processes which rightfully or wrongfully have brought concerns and issues forward, they do not speak with uniform voice that they don't think we're quite there. and then unfortunately we are put in a very unfortunate situation that supervisor kim mentioned something which we hear about, nothing we have seen, but due with respect to her, i have to be very clear. i would have expected that she

had called you or you would have at least in passing talk with each other to work it out and i don't see that. you admitted and i can empathize with you being frustrated. five minutes before closing time, attack out of left field is difficult to take no matter what situation you are in. i take that. on the other hand, i would have expected that somewhere along the line we'd all have to go through another discussion on another revised legislation where there will be other subtlies which we are supposed to address to simplify, only to make it more complicated. so, i basically would ask that the two supervisors speak to each other, give us a week or so, and come back with some kind of intent statement of how they want to move forward. i personally feel that i am sitting between two chairs. and as much as i would like to have clarity tonight, i personally don't have it. and it's partially my problem. i do not understand all the subtleties of c-e-q-a.

i do not understand all of the triggers of discretionary reviews, staff initiated discretionary reviews, any discretionary reviews brought forward by neighbors and what they all are. and whatever subtle differences there are in those three. abbreviated, staff initiated, full discretionary, they're all subtly different, i assume that they all require different responses. so, i have to abstain tonight from supporting it while i'm intent, in full support of what you're trying to do, i feel it is still too much unanswered to me. >> commissioner, i have a question. >> commissioners, on the motion to adopt a recommendation of approval with the modifications proposed by staff. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya?

>> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> no. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 2 with commissioners moore and wu voting against. >> commissioner hillis, do you still have a question? >> no. i mean, i just wanted to comment. i think what's not clear, i think what's troublesome is we actually don't have answers what the process is now, you know, what we currently -- the process that we're under, that we've been under for the last 10 years, we can't have people answer when the c-e-q-a process ends. so, i think this goes a long way in clarifying that and i appreciate it. >> commissioners, that will place you under item 15, for case no. 2012.0325c for 344 fulton street, request for conditional use authorization. ~ at 344 for the benefit of the

public, items 13 a and b have already been heard and taken out of order. >> good evening, president fong and members of the commission, my name is kevin guy with planning staff. the request before you today is for conditional use authorization to allow development on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet, to allow nonresidential use exceeding 6,000 square feet and to approve a planned unit development on the he located on the property 344 folsom street. the project would demolish surface parking lot and construct two buildings oriented around the central corridor yard. a boys and girls club containing recreational uses including a pool and gymnasium, game room, arts and crafts, learning center and recreational and educational spaces for youth. the third and fourth story of the building would house administrative office space for the boys and girls club. this facility would replace

existing single clubhouse located at 1950 page street in the upper haight with the facility located closer to the clientele served by the organization. the western building would reach six stories and would contain approximately 69 dwelling units and 180000 feet of ground floor commercial uses as well as other common spaces that could be occupied by retail use he. no off-street parking would be provided for the residential uses. however, six tandem spaces would be provided for use by the boys and girls club. the sponsors requesting a number of modifications from the planning code planned unit development or pud process. this process gives flexibility from the strict requirements of the code in order to achieve a superior project that meets the policy of the general plan, exhibits outstanding design, and complements the character of the area. specifically this project request modification of the requirements for rear yard, bay window configuration, dwelling unit exposure, streetscape

transparency and the work of the garage entry. as detailed in the written report, staff believes the modifications are relatively minor and that the design of the project proposing the intent of the code at each of the cited areas. i'd be glad to answer any questions on the specific modifications. staff believes that the project exhibits a design that is contemporary, yet compatible with the area meeting the expectations of the pud criteria. it was designed a two separate buildings each with distinct architectural character which avoids the appearance of a large single development. the mass boys and girls club complements the buildings in the civic center area, the character of the residential buildings complementary to the fine grain pattern and scale of residential areas to the west. the project also proposes requirements of better streets program with landscaping and amenities within the public realm including curb extension at fulton and gottion streets, raised crosswalk at ashe streets, and street trees landscaping accents and street

furniture along the entire frontage of the project. the packet also includes a concept drawing of build outs added at the other three corners of the intersection of fulton and gottion to enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. this drawing is not intended to be an actual proposal, but what they wish to pursue further [speaker not understood] with neighborhoods on specific design. should the commission choose to approve the design today, it whop not be a a condition of approval, enhancements could be considered to [speaker not understood], in kind approvements would offset some of the impact fees of the project. i should note that staff has received one letter in opposition to the project expressing concerns of over loss of light and open space in the area as well as construction noise. the project sponsor did receive several letters in support of the project that were received after staff publication and we can provide -- the sponsor will provide those to you shortly. i'd like to note that the staff

woreth also included a draft costa hawkins agreement that would enable the project to locate affordable units on-site. since publication of the report, this agreement has been signed by the planning department as a project sponsor and i have that signed copy available for reference. so, in conclusion staff supports the design and program of uses for this site. the boys and girls club will provide a diverse array of athletic and educational services to youth in the area. the project will add 69 dwelling units to the city's housing stock, including 8 on-site affordable units and walkable transit rich area suit fabv for [speaker not understood] use development. [speaker not understood] new housing and neighborhood services and create active vibrant street scapes. one other clarification i'd like to note with respect to your staff report packet. you'll report back includes a full set of project plans. some of those exhibits with respect to the residential building, the [speaker not understood] element of fulton and gottion is shown finished

in a light sort of beige pallet of [speaker not understood] exterior finish. there is a separate from the larger report packet that shows that same perspective, that corner element at fulton got, but with a darker pallet of that same tile finish. just to be clear, staff is recommending approval of the project as shown in the larger plan packet with the lighter color exterior. ~ got staff did have concerns through the review process with the darker color that is shown as the project sponsor's preferred color scheme. i can get into some of the details as questions may come up in the commission a little bit later, but i just wanted to clarify what staff's recommendation is for the lighter color pallet. but the separate sheets were provided at the request of the project sponsor to indicate what their probers is for a darker color scheme on that portion of the residential building. so, staff recommends the port

of the conditional use authorization and the request to plan unit development modifications and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> excuse me, mr. president. could i just add one thing to kevin's staff report? i just wanted to correct two issues in the draft that have to do with the c-e-q-a review and they're just elaboration, they're not substabtive. that this project was reviewed at a project level in the market and octavia e-i-r. so, on page 2 in your draft motion i'd like to add paragraph 3, this e-i-r is a program and project level e-i-r and the site was analyzed at a project specific level in the e-i-r to page 2. and then at the final page of your motion on page 23 to paragraph 2 to say the planning commission here by adopts the c-e-q-a findings contained in planning commission motion no.

17 406 incorporated herein by reference thereto and is a part of this motion. it's just a small correction to add to the fact that you will also be relying on the community plan exemption. thank you. i'm sorry for the interruption. >> thank you. project sponsor. thank you, president fong and commissioners and staff. my name is [speaker not understood], i work at [speaker not understood] investment group. we're here representing the boys and girls club, the project sponsor. it's late, i will be brief. i salute your fortitude. i want to give a very little project background for you to give some context, although mr. guy has done a good job so far. for the past four years the boys and girls clubs of san francisco have been seeking to build a new clubhouse to replace the aging earnest steyn gold clubhouse between shrader and stanyan described by mr. guy.

that clubhouse was built in 1953 and needs significant amount of work. after looking at a number of potential properties in the city, the boys and girls club entered into negotiations with the city of san francisco, the owner of the parcel that hosts the project you're reviewing tonight for a purchase of that property. the decision to move the facility is given by a number of factors that are germain to the discussion that are rehearsed in here. first the upper haight facility needs extensive renovations to meet the need. they hope to move closer to the neighborhoods many of their members currently live, hayes valley and lower haight. third, the club has long desired to locate their administrative headquarters at the site of one of their clubs. so, you'll see that it's part of the program as well, the club currently has administrative headquarters downtown at 55 hawthorne and they would be able to locate their offices on the site of the club which they're very excited about. the boys and girls club entered

into an option agreement to purchase the property from the city and it was granted -- approval of that was granted heard by the board of supervisors in february of 2012. that agreement contemplates the construction as you see in the project before you of youth recreation facility as well as a minimum of 30 units of housing. we're happy to report we have been able to provide more than the housing of 69 units as the project currently contemplates. design wise, so, with those requirements in mine we began the design process of the clubhouse portion of the project and we selected a third-party developer for the housing. the third-party developer, fulton and gottion is in association with jones stuart and company with developers. ~ [speaker not understood] both of those organizations are here to answer any questions on the housing. as you've heard from staff already, the development has two separate structures separated by a private open space, the clubhouse on roughly 50,000 square feet including a pool, gym, multi-purpose

programming space and office space for the boys and girls club headquarters and housing 69 units of housing at ground floor, retail or active -- ground floor retail fulton and gottion and little bit of ashe alley on the north side. from a design perspective we recognized early on this is a big site. it's 28,000 square feet. and there are initial plans focused on single integrated structure for both the housing and the club. we realized trying to find two separate architects and creating open space much better reflects the fine grain character of the smaller projects in the neighborhood. both [speaker not understood] the architects of the clubhouse and david baker architects, the architects of the housing are represented here today and they can answer specific questions about design, which i imagine may arise in your discussion. as far as public improvements or public benefit from the project, we are excited to be able to provide a valuable set of streetscape improvements that exceed the standards we

believe set by the market octavia and better streets plan as described by mr. guy already, they include street landscaping, lights, [speaker not understood] along the public right-of-way. we are particularly excited about a build out extending east from fulton and goth, along the north side of goth, hopefully an effect not dissimilar from the nice plaza-like field as the jazz center. we think it will be a nice congregating area for the retail and make it more vibrant than otherwise. community support i'll mention again as mr. guy did, there are a number -- we've heard strong endorsements from a number of community groups. we presented three times in hayes valley neighborhood and collaborative design process with them, their letter of strong support was sent to all commissioners yesterday. in addition we have a letter of support from our neighborhood in the south, affordability community [speaker not

understood], the bicycle coalition and walk san francisco have also submitted formal letters of support which i forwarded to the commission yesterday. i'm here for any questions. >> that is very quick. you should try doing voice overs for car commercials. >> moonlighting. >> thank you very much. i have one speaker card for public comment, and that's sean pearson. sean pearson? okay. sean left already. is there any additional -- public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask, perhaps the architect, i have never seen a staff report where there are two images. one where the architect has his scheme [speaker not understood], and the department having another scheme. so, i'd like to ask the architect to explain