portions of associated with section 181. and indefinite continuance. i think that we mentioned at the time for the staff in addition to go a little bit further and as much time as the staff and administration needs. >> okay. >> so, from the supervisors office do you have a specific, or if you can get together with planning staff on this issue and then perhaps. so i don't think that we have a time line on this and i knew that it was recognized as a complicated issue and we are surprised by the large number of units. we would like to move forward on this before the end of the year, september or some time would be a reasonable time to consider it. >> all right, thank you. >> let's pick a september date and if they need more time we

can always continue that. >> september 19th. >> perfect. >> all right. so on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> president fung. >> aye. >> and commissioners that motion passes 5-1, commissioner antonini against. >> commissioners moving on we will continue with items 11 a and b. and for case numbers 2013.671, mand z, >> good afternoon economickers commissioners that are left.

>> you have in front of you today request to adopt resolutions of intent to initiate amendments to the zoning map of san francisco and to the general plan and the zoning map of amendment was specifically relate to parcels that were adjacent to the soma plan area along mission street two parcels on mission and jessie street in that general vicinity and they need to be cleaned up and the general fund will be in the boundaries of the east soma plans to capture a portion of these parcels. just a background, the western soma was certified by the planning commission last december that eir has three

specific components to it and the first was the plan itself and that rezoning which the commission passed in december and the board of supervisors adopted in march of this year, there was a development at 358th street which the commission also approved last year and the rezoning deep adjacent parcels which is before you now. again, there are two other parcels that we want to include on mission and jessy street and in the general vicinity which is south of market mix used district which we are gradually phasing out as they are replaced by the district and eastern neighborhood mixed districts in the situation. and 3 g. and these sites happen to be the only two rsb sites north of mission street and are a bit out of place. and then lastly we want to

amend the boundaries of octavia and east soma to capture some of these parcels and pull them into the planning areas. just go over in detail what we are proposing. this is adjoining of the parcels that were analyzed in the eir to the 7th and ninth these are all zoned slr at this point. and between 9th and tenth and on tenth they are currently zoned cm and some of these huge parcels left. and again the two mar cells that we are also picking up and the rsd parcels kneer the intersection of 6th street and mission, in front of mission and jessy streets. last year there were a few technical errors that need to be cleaned up and three parcels tla first enter the intersection of tenth and mission and rezoned on to rcd

and a parcel on fulsom street that were out of the rezoning and remains the slr and a parcel on branen. and so the proposal is to split the adjacent parcels in the eir and the parcels from 7 to 9 and nuo which is the eastern neighborhoods in the mixed districts from 9th and tenth and on to tenth and c3 g to match the adjacent parcels and some of them being cleaned up and rezoned to what they were intended to be rezoned for is 3 g and (inaudible) mixed parcel on brannum. and the only proposed changes are associated with the clean

up of western somo and again the handful of parcels were inadvertently rezoned incorrectly and just going back and correcting the proposed heights in the original plan. this is a map of the boundaries of eastern soma and west, and they are part of the eastern neighborhoods and the adjacent parcel is just outside of those two boundary areas. and the proposal is to take the adjacent parcels that are between 7th and 9th and pull them into the east soma planned area and because they again are being proposed to rezone to nuos and mix used districts and the parcels between 9th and tenth and two on tenth that are being rezoned to c3 g to amend the boundary to pull those

parcels as well. so again today the only action before you that is proposed is to adopt the resolution to initiate zoning and the amendments and general plan amendments and the resolutions says that it was schedule and back to schedule a public hearing for these actions on or after august 15th at this point and that day is tentatively with your approval been set forth on september 12th. that concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions that you may have. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> steven on behalf of the citizen and property and the owner of the tenth street properties on mission street, just want to point out one thing that we would like to work with staff over the next

two months while this is being initiated to figure out the appropriate general plan and designation for the tree lots on mission and tenth. right now, there is in the downtown plan we don't see any reason why it should not stay in the downtown plan and part of the plan and the c3 g and without the planning and i wanted to point that out to you and to work with the staff over the next few months to figure out what is best. thank you. >> any further public comment? >> okay, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> could you bring what is originally established for these two districts because (inaudible) a different reason than i do and establish (inaudible) it does not really

create a uniform attitude towards the core doors. >> i asked that question, these parcels were not included as part of the market and they were not included in market originally or eastern neighborhoods. even though they were adjacent to all three. i don't have a good answer for that and i i don't know if anyone in the department does. i don't have a answer. >> in 2009, only, three of us were on the commission, and we approved a building of the far side of the property where you are now asking to increase to 250 feet i think. and we had an issue with the

south facing wall and the building and we have requested it to be a clean wall using the (inaudible) school as an example and vertical open space on that wall and at that time we hope that there will be a dialogue between these two properties at this moment raising the height on this parcel as what you are proposing does not speak to a dialogue. >> nor do i know what happened to the tenth street building. >> i should elaborate on that. the proposal to change the height of this tenth street parcel from 55 decks to 16 on m. is reverting it back to what it was before we incorrectly rezoned it as part of western soma. the original intent this property georgely before the plan was adopted was already 160 feet. but it was zoned cm.

and unfortunately again, due to an error in the ordinance, this parcel was captured in with the rest of the corridor along tenth street and it was down zoned as part of that ordinance. so what we are basically doing at this point is put the height back to where it was as opposed to adding this height from a lower height before. and then changing the zoning from cm to c3 g. >> the only thing that i would ask then is where is the building on the north side approved, is that still a viable project because that was allowing on a lower height despite the fact that it was a blank wall. >> are you referring to the parcel on the corner? >> i am not familiar with that project. >> they are moving for ward with the height and bulk that you proposed with a different architect but it is the height that you approved. >> right.

so now the righting of the wrong height back to the right height is what will reflected in the way that they approached the design because if it was designed in a different attitude of what is next to it, they are kind of going kirk lar here. >> to my knowledge very few people are even aware this mistake was made. because the maps themselves actually showed the height staying at 160. but the ordinance itself was incorrect when that is what counted. so, when that project was moving forward they would have been counting on the existing zoning and height at that time which was 160 feet. >> and will we acknowledge that the adjoining building will be 150 feet. >> that error was a recent error, at the time the project was approved the height was in effect and that would have been the adeputising that they used

that the adjacent buildings could have built to that height. >> commissioner antonini? >> just wanted to ask him if he has any information on what is being discussed, they said that it is approved or about to begin construction. >> it is actually across tenth street and not adjacent. >> my understanding is that the martin building company is moving forward with it and it is the development is moving forward with that project. >> the other two that there are four corners of tenth and mission. >> yeah. >> and the other three corners have an already built. >> excuse me, those people entering the room, if you could do so quietly we have a hearing. >> the other three corners of tenth and mission either have the two buildings that are approved and 160 feet and one that is already existing in the 4th corner, i am familiar with

where that is at and thank you for the information. >> i would move to approve or to initiate the amendments to the zoning map. with an understanding that staff will continue to work to or with the owners of the parcels to see that they are, you know, zoned in the appropriate place and... >> do you mean both the general... amendments and the building maps. >> or did you call one in? >> we called them both. >> i am moving both. >> the intent to initiate. >> second. >> on that motion, to adopt the resolutions of intent to initiate, amendments to the general plan and zoning maps. >> antonini. >> aye. >> borden >> aye. >> moore. >> aye >> sugaya. >> and so moved that passes

unanimously, 5-0. >> commissioners we can now consider 12 aand b for case numbers2011.0430e, and x. i do believe that at the beginning of this hearing there was a request to consider a continuance would you like to take up the matter of continuance at this time? >> therewise a request from the public. >> we should hear the request from the public. okay. >> thanks commissioners. this is from martin yale our attorney and this matter. and he reads dear commissioners, i write as an attorney and the wider neighborhood have been trying to get the planninging department to give due considerations to the concerns that the community has raised about this project.

and i contacted don lewis of the planning department staff and advised him that i have not received notice of the con ans on this. >> and because i will be out of state that day, i cannot attend. i will request a continuance so that my client can have the benefit of full representation. he will inform me and pass the letter on to you and i request that this hearing be delayed for the reasonable time so that i may attend and i would like to call the attention to the failure of the staff to respond to and in many instances to reply to the concerns raised by muna and the other members of the impacted community. in fact the most instances that the planning department staff have acted more like clear leaders than representatives. charged that the projects follows the sxraouls that the project does not endanger the

health of the community historical control resources. and environmental justice concerns are not swept under the rug and that the community does not assess the relative documents and the opportunity to study the project and to insure proper response to the community concerns, luna has submitted an appeal and supplemented the appeal of the additional concerns as summarized the failure to take actions and or planning department below. and where we have received the response is... >> does it need to be the matter of continuance. >> we just speaking to the matter of continuance. >> this is what he wrote. he is asking n >> i understand that. >> but if you want to get to the subject matter of the case... >> okay, so failure to provide the new phase one report to the community and request the notice to the week of the hearing this document was not

submitted to the planning until july. >> if you would like to request a continuance. >> yes. >> okay. >> i would like to request a continuance. >> you have a date in mind? >> when our attorney can make it. >> kind of what is convenient for the commission. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yeah, i think that could you repeat that last not getting documents from the planning commission? staff? i would like to know. >> he says failure to provide the new phase report to the community or those requesting noise until the week of the hearing and this was not submitted to the plan until july 8th and considered in the response of the appeal and planning department response nine. >> thank you. >> all right. >> and several more informational reasons. >> yeah. and another page and a half. >> thanks. >> commissioners you might want to entertain the public mat

comment on the matter of continuance. >> is there any public comment on the matter of continuance? >> commissioners, downtown high school is located 1113 feet away from 480 patrello it states that there are no schools and there are two provisions that require the schools be given at least. >> we are just speaking to the matter of the continuance. >> are you in support of the continuance. >> i am sorry, i am in support of the continuance and i think that the department would also have to be also because the school is not given notice. i don't see how it is actually a problem. but yes i am also asking for a continuance based on the sunshine ordinance. and that case in the middle of august and so the end of august would be i am sure that things

will be resolved. >> any further public comment on the matter of continuance? >> seeing none, commissioner borden? >> so maybe, you can remind me, this has been continued a few times? >> in de. >> could you tell me when it has been continued and why? >> i can't tell you all of the reasons why, but i do understand that a majority of them for the project sponsor to continue. but the first time it was continued was from november first of 2012, again, january 17, 2013, march 21st. may 16th and most recently from june 20th of 2013. so it has been on your calendar several times. >> i mean typically you know this commission will continue things a couple of times. but continuance in my personal view a continuance since november is a lot.

i don't know why there has no, and why there are still concerns. but have not been worked out at least on the hearings today. but in my view, i don't know that we can continue to continue this any longer, it seems like there is probably not agreement among the parties that so a continuance would just probably lead to another. >> commissioner antonini? >> in regards to the move for a continuance, the latest continuance i think that you had mentioned from what date it was. >> it was from june 20th to today. the project sponsor is in in favor of the continuance, and i

don't see any other possible consideration would be staff to answer noticing that there was a claim that noticing was inadequate as far as the particular high school was concerned and he is in the area and you could speak to the noticing for this particular project. >> yes, planning department staff. yeah, so we complied with sequa and chapter 31 of the administrative code regarding the notice. there have been been a lot of notifications and the sponsors has had a lot of meeting at these locations that they are claiming were not notified. >> there is a school that is cross the freeway and it is what it is, barely within a quarter mile radius and the deck said that it wasn't and we missed that and i don't know how that will lead to any substantial evidence that there is any impact that was not disclosed.

and so... >> thank you. >> all right. >> commissioners sugaya? >> if there is no motion to continue, could we hear the case. >> good evening, joining me is sarah jones, acting environmental review officer, before you is the negative declaration to the project that concludes the project and 58 foot tall and a mixed use building containing 77 residential units 947 units and 74 parking spaces and it is vacant with no structures and adjacent auto body shop has been using it as a illegal parking lot. and before you and the containing a executive summary

and the response to the appeal letter. and published a focus and the exemption in 2012, on october 17th, the department received an appeal letter. the department received letters. the construction of the project could cause. due to these changes, they appealed on april 15, 2013, and there are no changes to the

conclusions and for the projects and plan areas such as this, the project is reviewed for the significant impacts that are not addressed in the ier, for this project it is the eastern neighborhoods and because the project would have a significant project specific impact, related to hazard, and this is in addition to the planning exemption, and response to the issue, and raised by the commenters and the department found that the phase one information to conduct the environmental review and subsequent to the pmd the sponsor obtained a new phase one and does not change the findings. the department will require an updated report and review the project building application, pursuant with the implementation of the building

code. the environmental review was noticed in the requirements of the san francisco administrative code and they have been met. and while implementation of the proposed project will result in a building that will be viewed as one of the larger buildings in the area, the project will not result in the substantial and negative change in the environment. the project is consistent with the development assumptions in the eastern neighborhoods and complies with the planning code. staff knows that there are no substantial evidence of the significant environmental effect that has been presented and warrant preparation of a new eir. recommend to adopt the motion and holding the mmd, the commission will not restrict the ability that the uses or design are appropriate for the neighborhood and that will be discussed in the agenda item. and this concludes my presentation, and i am available if you have any questions thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners these items were called up together and if you so choose to up hold that

preliminary negative declaration, there is a request for a large project operational to hear the presentation for now. >> a new building will contain 47 parking spaces and a one level basement parking garage and allow for exposure (inaudible) and the urban mixed use zoning district and a 58 height designation, 10,000 square feet of total open space will be provided by an open courtyard. and the access will be from both the avenue and the street and it will have access to the parking garage (inaudible) and

the project generally conforms for the development standards.

>> public comment will be taken on aand b at one time and so if you want to comment on iitem it is your opportunity. >> i have a number of speaker cards.

>> are you the first speaker? you can get started. >> i am jean (inaudible) and (inaudible) of the luna neighborhood organization and we have been working on looking and trying to understand this project for a while. luna and the (inaudible) club appealed the deck and based on the community plan issues, a lot of different community plan issues aesthetics and actually some of the community plan issues