posted on the person's home, that's how you would know now. that's how you would know in the future for those projects. >> yes. >> so, the big difference on projects that come to us is where we take action on a dr or cu, that's what triggers the c-e-q-a appeal, right, in the new legislation, whereas we could take action today on the next dr that's coming up. the people who want to appeal the case, then, could wait till the time the building department issues the permit to appeal that case? >> yes, they could wait until the appeal period is expired on the final action that's taken. and, in fact, under the current procedures, the building permit appeal period, not the c-e-q-a appeal period. under the current procedures, the dr hearing does not constitute an approval action.

so, if somebody tried to file a c-e-q-a appeal after a dr hearing, they would hear back from the city attorney that their appeal was not ripe. >> so, you couldn't even apply now -- >> under the current. >> no, it does actually make sense. it makes perfect sense. we've taken a public action on a dr. that kind of starts the appeal -- which, you know, we've taken a c-e-q-a action, too, there is an underlying c-e-q-a action that accompanies that dr. that's what triggers the appeal. i mean, the reason we're get -- that question on these -- you showed us like two pages of -- >> excuse me, this is exactly the issue that we are grappling with here, is that it is really

not clear under current procedures what does constitute an approval action. ms. warren from the city attorney's office just informed me that contrary to my previous understanding, a dr is an approval action. >> so, you could file an appeal, then. but you could also wait until the building permit is issued to file an appeal? >> no -- >> under the current law, under current law. so, we've taken an action. obviously people who are interested know about it, but you can wait, then, and what's the time period you have to file a building -- if we issue a dr, and we reject a dr and someone is able to build a project, how long do they have to issue -- to go get a building permit? >> as long as they want. >> is that the same three years? >> it is within that three-year period, i believe, yeah. >> so someone -- so, we could take an action here for a dr. this is kind of the crux of the issue. we can take an action on the dr here, a neighbor's dr they have concern about it. we reject the dr.

they have then three years to wait to file a c-e-q-a appeal on that document -- on that approval. and that's why we see -- >> i'm sorry, just to clarify. so, a dr is an action on the building permit. so, there is no timeline to file a building permit because the dr is an action on the building permit. >> still a permit file. >> so it would be the case of cu. >> correct. >> we would have that time. >> a cu is an entitlement and you would have three years to file the building permit. >> so, back to the dr under this legislation, the final approval and the first approval is basically the same. it would be that dr action. >> yes. >> there is also building -- there is also dbi activity the the dr is part of the process of the planning department considering the building more mitt. but the department of building inspection is the ultimate issuer of the building permit.

so, there is -- >> elaine warren, city attorney's office. on the way this ordinance is written, if a project is subject to dr and a hearing is requested in front of the planning commission, the approval the project by the planning commission after such a dr hearing is what would trigger the appeal period for filing an appeal -- >> i get with this legislation. i'm asking the current rules we follow. >> under current procedure from the first approval, which we have -- our office ha advised, if it's a dr project, it's the dr approval by the planning commission. ~ has until the project is finally approved and there are no further administrative actionses associated with that project. so, for a dr project, that typically would be once either the appeal period where a

building permit has run, [speaker not understood], or if an appeal is filed with a building permit, it would be after the opportunity for a rehearing, after a hearing in front of the board of appeals has expired. or they have taken it up on rehearing and they have finally decided that's it. if you filed after that point, it would be too late. >> okay. i guess i don't understand, then, how on some of these projects like 10 lundy's lane, these aren't the treasure island or park merceds of the world. why we have the number of days between a c-e-q-a determination and an appeal hearing of like 300 days, 400 days. >> well, because those typically, what would happen is that people would wait -- the appellants would wait until after the building permit issues and, you know, maybe the last day of the appeal period.

you know, then they would file their appeal at the board of supervisors. they might not even file an appeal of the building permit, although some time that happens, too. so, that might be the explanation. it just depends on how long it takes the person to get from here to get their building permit issues. >> okay. >> under commissioner hillis' question, under the -- supervisor wiener's legislation, if there was a dr and we denied it or approved it with conditions or something, under his legislation, that would be the trigger for the 30 days in which somebody has to appeal it to the board. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, within -- apart of the dr process, however, i think they have x number of days to also appeal it to the board of

appeals. so, if it's appealed to the board of appeals -- >> if i could clarify on that. so, the appeal to the board of appeals comes on the issuance of the building permit, not as of 15 days from the date the commission takes an action on the dr. so, you would take an action on the dr -- we would as staff approve it or deny it based upon your decision. then it goes on to the building department and other city agencies for review. then it's ultimately approved by dbi and issued and it's that issuance which carries the 15-day appeal period to the board of appeals. so, in going back to the issue about the time, [speaker not understood] such a long time between the two. i mentioned last week during the board of appeals report this case in 61 1 buena vista, the commission took dr and heard the appeal in november. we heard the permit with revisions the commission wanted in october. so, really, they could have

filed their c-e-q-a appeal on that any time after that approval action, always based on revised plans. building permit was issued in december. appealed to the board of appeals, calendared for hearing last week. and the appellant did not file their c-e-q-a appeal until the week before the board of appeals hearing. and i have seen it even where it goes to the board of appeals, the board of appeals takes an action to maybe uphold the permit. there is a 10-day rehearing period. if you can file your rehearing request during that 10 day period, you're given another hearing at the board of appeals to make an argument about the merits for a rehearing. and i've seen c-e-q-a appeals come in a day before the rehearing is held. >> under this legislation, though, i just want to get clarification on. so, if the dr decision by the planning commission is the trigger, then any appellant has to act within 30 days to appeal it to the board.

once that happens, then any action that the building department is on hold, is that right? or under the legislation can they go ahead? i think they can go ahead and go through the building process, but the building department can't issue the permit until the environmental is cleared. >> that would be correct, that would be correct. >> that would be basically the same for a cu, for a conditional use where we take an action to approve a conditional use. that would be the triggering action -- >> that is correct. >> and then that would be the -- 30 days starts and it would be appealed to the board of supervisors. >> and they could appeal the cu at the same time to the board of supervisors. >> right. >> they could both be appealed together and they could be held current together at the board. a 309 would also be an example of -- a 309 permit would have an appeal process after it's approved by this body.

that would most likely be the triggering approval. >> okay. >> i mean it's clear from this we don't have -- it's not clear when the appeals period starts and runs and it's not -- i don't think in many cases, a significant difference between what it is now, but it needs to be clearly defined. i think this doesn't. as far as supervisor kim's legislation, we haven't seen it, you know, we're happy to comment on it and review it just like we did this process. but until we have it before us, we can't do anything. i think what's before us, though, makes sense. you know, i like the increase 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 meetinhe