dolores to frame the palm trees. and that's the main street tree. and at the corner we are adding smaller trees not to block the view. but fun for pedestrians to sit in the new bench area and landscape with color and benches and bicycle parking. in general i think our idea was to enhance them by respecting them. and then continuing that promenade we saw on dolores street. >> thank you, that's a great explanation. and the trees and that's a wonderful idea. i am generally very supportive of this project. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner moore brought up a good point about that turn. and making sure if there is an area, we understand there is a bike lane or space for bikes. but if that radius part, the 14-foot bulb out is fine and you have the roundous radius and

making sure it's gracious enough of the bike lane and traffic doesn't have to cut the corner to get in there. i think if tu -- if you look at that carefully it wouldn't compromise your plaza. but if that radius has to be shrunk for right turns and that might be an area. you have an easy cross and you have the median in the middle and putting them there. that may be an area to look at if conflicts arise. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second to approve the in-kind agreement for market street. [calling roll]

>> so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. >> the commission will take a short break and resume. >> the planning commission regular hearing for march 13, 2013. i'd like to remind the audience the planning commission does not tolerate outbursts or disruption of any kind. please turnoff mobile devices that may sound off during the proceeding. we left off on item 12. we will be taking items 13 a and b out of order for case numbers 2012.1307cv for 1270 sanchez street (bethany united methodist church), request for conditional use authorization and off-street parking variance.

>> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission. tom wang planning staff presenting conditional use and variance application for 12 70 sanchez street. project sponsor seeks conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.3f and 303 to establish a child care facility. the [speaker not understood] academy providing less than 24-hour care for 15 or more and up to a maximum of 45 children at the bethany united methodist church, 12 70 sanchez street. and based upon the project sponsor's statement, the proposed child care facility will be allowed to accommodate up to a maximum 45 children. according to the total square feet of outdoor activity areas and the rest room capacity, the

child care center general license and requirements of the state of california. the proposed child care facility would occupy the fellowship hall and the nursery within the church. these two spaces are not used during the weekdays by the church congregation. the proposed child care facility operating hours will be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. mondays through fridays serving children from 2-1/2 years to 6 years old. five members will be staffed at the facility. and the children's dropping off and pick up hours are staggered . issues and considerations, the project will be a vital development that is both desirable and necessary for children not yet reaching school age in the noe valley

neighborhood. there are no other child care facility currently existing on the subject lot or adjacent blocks. and according to the project sponsor, that approximately 80 families in the noe valley community had already registered their interest with the operator of the proposed facility. the other issue is that the proposed child care facility would accommodate up to a maximum of 45 children. therefore, pursuant to planning code section 151 and 153, the project would need to provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. the project does not include any off-street parking spaces and therefore is subject to a variance off-street parking variance. the zoning administrator will hear the variance while the commission considers the

conditional use application. basically the department would recommend approval of the project and it is based upon the following. one, it is not a formula retail use, but rather an independently owned business. it will be a compatible use with the surroundings residential neighborhood. it is designed to mainly serve children not yet reaching school age in the noe valley community. it is well served by public transit, the location, and should have negligible impact upon the current traffic pattern on the surrounding streets. in addition, the project sponsor has applied for a passenger loading and unloading zone along on sanchez street in front of the facility's entrance. and the number 5 [speaker not understood] at least five jobs

for city residents. and finally comprised with the maximum number of children permitted under the child care center general licensing requirements of the state of california. by today, the department received in total about 15 e-mails and letters from the neighborhood residents all in support of the facility. the department received only one e-mail this morning from a neighbor residing on clifford street. the neighbor had an issue mainly involved traffic safety for children's loading and unloading and delivery issues. as well as the number of -- the maximum number of children, which will be 45 children. this would conclude our presentation. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor?

hi, i'm christin [speaker not understood]. i am the pastor at bethany united methodist church, sometimes secretary. that's how my name got on. i am so happy this day finally came. and then waiting for this hour and now it's come and my thank you to the people of item 12. thank you, thank you, thank you. [laughter] we moved back into our building in july of last year. after being gone for three years in the mission, while we remodeled our 1907 building. and the coming home was wonderful. the community has welcomed us. and in the backs of our minds the whole time we were planning, what are we going to do with this building during the week? because the membership isn't there, but there's some great space. and, so, we did a lot of talking, a lot of thinking about what is the best use for

this community and for us to be involved in. and we had a couple of different ideas, but the one that spoke to us the most was some kind of preschool, and we were very fortunate to get connected with the director of her academy in sonoma, and we went and we visited and we talked and we measured and we started the process of saying, let's see if we can do this. her preschool is not a child care. it is an academy. and the parents who have been responding to the possibility of it opening there had been very persistent and very eager to know that something additional that can be quality and be for their children is

coming to noe valley. we have a lot of little spaces in noe valley. on 24th there is a little tiny music place, a little tiny play place. but what we have is some bigger space and some room for doing actual education. so, we have made it this far and we have more to do after this and we just are hopeful that you will also see that this is a good use of a public building for many people. thank you. >> thank you. questions? >> there may be questions for you later. thank you. opening up for public comment, timothy thin, steve griffin, john goldman, kathleen mull

duffin, and kathrin nemeth. hello, thank you for letting me speak. my name is tim thin. i've lived down the street from the church for 25 years. they've been an excellent neighbor and did a good job of reaching out to the neighborhood on their previous project. i have consulted with a number of neighbors who could not be here tonight. their main concern is actually the traffic situation. the change of child care facility from 15 to 45 kids is tripling the capacity of that facy. there is no parking, there is no loading zone. and, you know, it's changing the church from a church to a day care center to a school. and as i understand there is no staff to manage the drop-offs and pick ups. the neighbors have concerns. they would normally expect outreach about this part of the project and this change to this facility. they would expect a traffic plan.

they would normally expect somebody to supervise pick ups and drop offs. james lick, a school up the street, has crossing guards and has a lot of problems with traffic and the interaction of children and the cars around there. there should be some way especially to prevent the back up of the cars which will line up in front of the school to drop off from backing up onto clipper street. clipper street to the locals is known as the clipper freeway, and since i have three accidents to contribute to that opinion, it can be a very dangerous street in the morning. should the cars in front of the drop-off back up more than four cars, they will start, you know, having their blinkers on and their flashers on and leave their car and it will create a really dangerous situation there, which i know they really don't want. you know, this is a change to the neighborhood and has a significant impact on what is a residential area.

the church brings a business in, when you bring a business with traffic impact, that business is burdened with showing how they'll mitigate those traffic issues. the other thing is the -- what happens if you have kids that you dropped off at school, everybody will park on both sides of sanchez street with their flashers on. i pray nothing happens to any of those children. so, i believe we'd like to see the project and project sponsors reach out to the neighborhood and show how that's not going to end up being one of those really bad and dangerous traffic situations from this change. thank you. >> next speaker, if you're ready. commissioners, i'm john goldman, principal of goldman architects, the architect of this project. i'm here just to note that the drawings that you see in front of you represent a project that's now complete. originally there was going to be a fellowship hall down where

the school is going in. so, i'm here just to say how well this new use works in the building because the fellowship hawes has a series of french doors providing direct access to the courtyard. the place is flooded with daylight. ~ all the kids and parents who visited enjoyed the space. i think it's a really good use of the church. as chris pointed out, the space is under used during the week and this creates an opportunity for the parents in the neighborhood, which is greatly under served by this -- by pre-schools, which i'm sure kathleen will speak to. so, i'm here just to say that the architecture supports the use as well. if you have any questions about the plans, i certainly can answer them. >> thank you. hi, my name is kathleen

muldevan. i'm the owner and founder of the muldevan academy. i'd like to thank you, president fong and commissioners, for this evening and your time. i want to address some of the issues that have been brought up. one, bethany united methodist church picked me and my preschool academy primarily because we are not ~ just a day care center with an intention of just watching the children. we are an educational institution with a world renowned curriculum and we are here to teach young children. this is a well-researched program. it's not an arbitrary day care center. so, bethany united methodist church chose a very high-quality program to go into this space. so, it will not be a play-based day care center. we have started this process

over a year ago. so, the community is aware of that, bethany united methodist church is looking to put a preschool, and particularly our preschool in their location. so, we have attracted a lot of attention. we have begun the application process. and we have met with over 100 of families. we have well over 100 applicants. and i can tell you that over 90% of the applicants live in the neighborhood. and what's making this preschool so attractive to them, of course, not only the high-quality educational program, but the fact that we are in their neighborhood and at walking distance. a lot of the families that have come to meet with me complain about having to get in their car and drive their child to a preschool, you know, in another neighborhood. they're really excited to walk their children to school. so, i really want to impress that upon you this evening that this is a big attractive feature for the local community in noe valley that this

preschool is here and it's in walking distance. we will be a state license facility. we are not allowed to operate otherwise. and in doing so, we are held to state guidelines. one being that we cannot have unsupervised drop-off or pick ups. they have to be supervise. you can't just drop off your child and there's no provider there to greet them. in muldevan academy we have a very organized system of [inaudible] and pick up. we will have crossing guards, and we have approximately 30 families a day. we anticipate with staggered drop off times. not all 30 families will be coming at once. it will be staggered between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m. and the pick ups will be staggered between 2:00 and 6:00. so, it won't be a giant crowd of people showing up all at once showing up to drop off and pick up their children. again, families will be mainly

walking their children to and from school. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hello. my name is kate nemeth and i'm a resident of noe valley and i'm unique in the fact that i am a resident of noe valley. i am a member of the bethany united methodist congregation. and i was on the faculty for the muldevan academy in sonoma. so, on three different levels i'm very familiar with what is proposed before us. i would just like to say that san francisco, it is my understanding that san francisco would like to be knowns as a family-friendly city and noe valley is a family community.

so, before -- and i also would like to mention that the muldevane academy is an award winning school for safety. so, that is -- if that is a primary concern, that is addressed in the fact of their sterling record. but kathleen and myself did canvas the neighborhood. we went to farmers market. we talked to parents. and the need is very great. and for myself, it's a wonderful feeling that i am helping to fill the need of my community in providing a quality -- a quality school for the children in the neighborhood. so, it is my hope that you will approve this. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker. okay, seeing no further comment -- no public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i'd like to ask, i don't know, either staff or mr. goldman. the plans that were submitted are labeled for the conditional use. but mr. goldman just testified that the work has already been completed on the building. so, really, the plans that were submitted, we're not approving any of the architecture work at this point. is that correct? >> that is correct. there's no exterior or interior work proposed under this application. the church received a major renovation interior and exterior completed in june 2012. >> okay. i guess that was confusing because when i read that there were no exterior changes, but the plans are full of exterior changes, so, that was a little confusing to me.

if that's the case, then i don't have any issues. so, make a motion to approve [speaker not understood]. >> second. >> would you call the question, please? >> on that motion to approve with conditionses, 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, commissioner, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. zoning administrator. >> the variance closed, [speaker not understood] granting requested variance off-street parking would result in the loss of on-street parking and alterations to the building which is a potential historic resource. if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please inform staff. >> congratulations. >> commissioners, that will place you back on item 12 for case no. 2012.1329u, california environmental quality act procedures.

>> good evening, commissioners, amy rodgers planning department staff. i'm joined for this item sara jones, acting environmental review officer. before we begin our staff presentation i'd like to invite supervisor wiener up to make his remarks. >> hello again, commissioners. thank you for your [speaker not understood]. so, since the last time we were together on this item in november, i have as you requested convened a series of very well attended round tables with people in the community, some in support, some in opposition, some in the middle. we've also had other meetings with individuals who have been interested or organizations, and we've been listening and

we've been dialoguing. resulting from these conversations, i have made 34 different amendments covering 26 subject matters into the legislation that is before you today. this legislation for the first time will put in place a clear and transparent statutory procedure forsee qua appeals of categorical exemptionses and negative declarations to the board of supervisors. ~ for c-e-q-a it is important reform for our process which is chaotic the opposite of transparent and which is unpredictable. it is a process that undermines public participation by being confusing to the point that really only skilled and experienced insiders actually know how to navigate it. it is a process that is the opposite of good government. this legislation has no subtantive impact on c-e-q-a. despite some of the dramatic

claims that this is, quote-unquote, gutting c-e-q-a, we of course had no power to amend c-e-q-a locally. this legislate ace is totally separate from the proposal circulating in sacramento to potentially amend c-e-q-a in one way or another. ~ legislation this legislation merely sets our procedures for how we allow appeal. and i want to note that there are organizations that are very active opposing the proposed changes in sacramento to c-e-q-a itself. those organizations are not opposing this legislation. in fact, we just heard today that the state building and constructions trade councilmember which has been one of the leaders fighting the changes to c-e-q-a in sacramento has officially stated that they have no issue with what we are doing here in sacramento. ~ council today i'm sure you'll hear some of the same arguments we heard last time. there will be criticisms of the process around this legislation.

and as i noted, we have gone through exhaustive public process. before your last hearing we had already had a number of meetings and made amendments and we did so after. there will again be claims that this is some sort of developer scheme or plot which is entirely untrue. c-e-q-a appeals, as you know, and as i know, impacts things from bike lanes to affordable housing projects and park projects, small residential projects, and other projects that are anything but developer schemed. in fact, i'll let you know that various organizations have endorsed this legislation, including mercy housing which is one of the largest affordable housing providers in san francisco, the san francisco bike coalition has endorsed it, walk san francisco, spur, the sheet metal workers local 104, and the planning association for the richmond. and i will note as you may recall, par was one of the lead

appellants, c-e-q-a appellants against the at&t boxes and was a plaintiff in that c-e-q-a lawsuit. par is an organization that understands the importance of c-e-q-a and nevertheless supports this legislation. now, as you know, c-e-q-a exists to ensure proper environmental analysis when we make decisions. c-e-q-a does not exist as a tool to delay projects. our current procedures unfortunately can sometimes be used that way because they are so convoluted that not many people even understand them. now, the planning staff will provide you with a very detailed overview and presentation and i'm not going to go into depth about that. i do want to talk to you about a few key provisions in the legislation. one is to impose for the first time a clear deadline for filing appeals under c-e-q-a for cad x's and negative

declarations. there is currently not a clear deadline to do so. and as a result, there are many late appeals that are filed. and because of the lack of clarity around when an appeal deadline is, we sometimes have people who miss appeals. and i want to give you a recent example just in response to those who say we're trying to reduce the number of c-e-q-a appeals, that is not the goal here. the goal is to give clarity to people. there was a recent appeal filed to the board of supervisors relating to renovation work being done in glenn canyon. these were very on the ball appellants. and guess what? after two weeks since we have to get a special opinion from the city attorney every time an appeal comes in because no one really knows whether an appeal is timely or not, their appeal is deemed untimely. it was for a very convoluted reason that frankly i still don't understand to this day. i had a situation where whether or not i agree with an

appellant, they should be able to know when the deadline is. this legislation will also provide that when the board of supervisors is already taking legislative action, that the c-e-q-a determination will be heard at the same time as that legislative action so that we're doing one hearing instead of two at the board. it will also provide that when a c-e-q-a appeal is filed -- right now it freezes everything and no commission or decision maker can take any action. this will allow other process he to proceed as long as it doesn't make a physical change to the property. we also improve public noticing in various respects. the goal is to improve noticing, have good notice and have clear rules and deadlines. we did, as i note in the 34 amendments -- i'm not going to go through all those amendments. ly just mention a few of them that i think are significant.

in terms of making sure that if a project changes after the c-e-q-a determination is made, there was a concern that if the deadline is after the first entitlement, that a project could change and there wouldn't be a right to appeal. we added clarifying language to make crystal clear the project changes that will need to be a new c-e-q-a determination and there will be new c-e-q-a rights. there was some concern about what the first approval action is that triggers the c-e-q-a appeal deadline and could you have a situation where someone seeks the most minor entitlement [speaker not understood] future permit and saves everything else for later and makes it so that people aren't able to exercise intelligently the c-e-q-a appeal rights. we added a significant and detailed amendment which staff will describe to you to make clear that that could not be the case. you can't just do a minor entitlement for