antonini antonini i -- commentcomment -- commissioner antonini: i just wanted to get that clear from you if in fact it was used, the contribution, to the e.i.r., i've never heard that before. my final, i guess more of a comment, the only thing i find lacking in the environmental impact report, which i believe in my opinion is complete and accurate and should be certified is i did not see as many different views from different vantage points as i am used to seeing. usually we see a number of different sites so we kind of get an impact where this will have an impact from different areas and we only have the one view essentially in this report so that's my only problem. 9 alternatives are here. the lower project, the, i think that's very accurately done. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: further in support of what commissioner antonini is saying, as people are saying they are concerned that the building has been refined and redesigned, that is not actually subject to -- substantive enough change. the e.i.r. in that interpretation is connect and i do believe it cov

antonini. president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini it's a hike to get to the station or van ness and some parts might not be the most pleasant areas to walk to. what are you going to do, get on the bus and ride a block to to get there in a driving rain storm. whether you have kids or not, you have to be realistic what people look for when they buy condominiums or residencess. so i am not favorable of the local parking ratio. i'm going to make a move to continue, and i'll tell you why. i think there's a little confusion here as to we have often in the past, we have had motions where we bring forth two separate motions. we bring force a motion with the higher ratio of parking and the lower ratio of parking. because if we were to approve and intent to improve with the higher ratio, we couldn't approve it today and would have to bring it back on another day anyway. is that correct? >> commissioner antonini, i think the ceqa findings, if the commissioner were to approve the 37 parking spaces, the ceqa findings are correct. i think staff wo

antonini? commissioner antonini: i was on muni yesterday going downtown about 7:45 from westport on and i was lucky to get on the train and it went by a couple of places where there wasn't enough room for people to get in at stations further down. there are a lot of people who ride muni and what we need to do as other cities have, particularly denver, i mentioned earlier, lots of light rail going in all over denver and out to suburban areas and they have a metropolitan plan a little like b.a.r.t. but their citywide transportation is part of a region transportation system that might be something some day we may be able to do in the bay area and we're not duplicating each other as is often the case. >> commissioners, protect me if i'm wrong. i heard the motion by commissioner moore but did not hear a second. >> that was me. secretary: on the motion for approval. commissioner moore: secretary avery, the city attorney is asking for your attention. >> thank you. president olague, kate stacy from the city attorney's office. i want to make sure i understood the motion to include this exploration of the proposal to extend the transit, the t.d.m. requirements so i've crafted some language and i'd like to read it into the record to make sure it captures the intent of the motion. in the last whereas clause in the commission's motion where it says whereas the commission has reviewed the proposed ordinance, i propose adding in and discussed a proposal to extend the existing transit demand management requirements to nonresidential projects consisting of 10,000 square feet or more. commissioner moore: no. mr. radulivic, could you help us with the language? >> the issue is not to extend the controls but to limit them so they do apply already in the eastern neighborhood mixed use districts. the proposal is to limit them to projects only over 100,000 square feet and to remove their applicability to neighborhood retail and service use so it's more at limiting or curtailing current requirements than it is extending it, but otherwise, yes. >> i will -- i think the two concepts are to limit the applicability of the transit demand -- transportation management program to larger venues and to look at its application to a couple of uses that are proposed, but then in the actual motion, the moved sections, that the commission is supporting exploration of these concepts, not necessarily endorsing the specifics. commissioner moore: i think that is correct, yes. it does require the dialogue and the full support of the department to write off on this. >> i think ms. rogers and i can accurately reflect that concept in the motion with those amendments. secretary: so your motion for approval with the idea that the city attorney and staff, ms. rogers, will work on refining the language to capture your intent, on the motion, commissioners, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: no. secretary: commissioner borden? stepped away. commissioner fong? aye, commissioner moore,. [the motion passed] secretary: the motion passed 5-1 with commissioner antonini voting against. commissioners, you are now on item no. 8, case no. 2011.00 84c. >> before you is a request for continual use authorization to convert the ground floor unit to a new full-service restaurant and bar establishment with an outdoor activity area located at 741 valencia street. since your packets were distributed on april 21, staff has received one additional email from the adjacent neighbor to the south. she has concerns specifically related to drainage, maintenance and structural issues. she is currently working with d.b.i. and the project sponsor to resolve her concerns. per the advice of the city attorney, staff is proposing terrible findings that clarify the use of terms that are normally used in relation to ceqa impact only. this language was emailed to you in the memo date

antonini? commissioner antonini: i'm going to speak against the motion. i like the design. i live in that area. i know what the rest of the shopping center looks like and the only other building of note in that whole shopping center that is nicely done, i think, is tower market. note in the shopping center is to our market. what they are trying to do is to be contextual with tower market. a lot of the other stuff is not of a very high standard. perhaps this can be a catalyst to began to bring the rest of that shopping center all along with the. that this is replicating to some degree and that is what is exemplified by tower market. this sets the architectural tone. if you look at the rendering they have produced, they have one that is in the report that is certainly very well done and it addresses the corner extremely well. i don't really know what else i would want to see. i am very happy with the way it is done. i would like to get this settled today. this is not a complicated issue. if we are interested in supporting neighborhood businesses by trying to change the parkin

antonini? commissioner antonini: i'm going to speak against the motion. i like the design. i live in that area. i know what the rest of the shopping center looks like and the only other building of note in that whole shopping center

antonini? >commissioner: antonini: there is a road, the bayview park road. this may come off of bay shore boulevard. because this does not show where this is -- >> you have to go in on here, and you go into the parts that say, convert to mixed use residential. and these maps will show the convergence of the zoning. i am just wondering if this is a new road, not at this matters. the tunnel -- i walk through there to 49er games. there may already be a road up there. there is a call with some housing development as you get further onto the western side of the view -- bayview hill. >> a trail within this park -- >> it may not be vehicular. >> i can't say. they can make a correction to show the -- we are happy to more clearly show the freeway. this is between rh 1 and executive park. >> the aerial photograph, it looks like this is probably a mapped street, but not imporved to one you could -- improved to one you could drive on. >> i am certain that this has been mapped this way, but this may not yet be in existence. it would provide access without having to drive through the development. this just makes sense. >> the executive park will not have access -- and so, the access is still from the neighborhood at the rear. the other side of bayview hill. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: you have a large number of people living in the development. i anm concerned about how they will get across 10 freeway lanes. to cross a 120 foot right-of- way before they come to the park. signalization is one way of putting it. this is not crossed with a normal change-over. when this road is really designed for higher speeds, traffic, and transportation, in the event there would be a game in candlestick park. executive park boulevard -- this is enough distance to have two signals here. in that short of a distance, public works would build two signals. you need to time them for pedestrians to cross 10 lane freeway -- a 10 lane freeway. what thoughts have you given for the residential neighborhoods to reach this? >> this is not part o fthf the scope. my understanding, one of the transportation planners -- the yary are designed with a couple of signals in these intersections. >> you have give nthis a -- given this a lot of thought. both entry points are signals. we have worked with the load. absolutely to your point. >> i am not interested in car movement, but pedestrian movement. this will lead the waterfront to realize being in this location. >> this is in market street. commissioner moore: the embarcadero is designed for people, not for cars. you are still -- i hope you are concerned that this is huge. >> this is a remarkable place in front of the waterfront, to have people getting over there. >> antonini? >> commissioner antonini: the transportation is a work in process, this is certainly at a rapid transit, allow for the side that is adjoining the park. there may be a change in elevation to allow pedestrian access underneath or above the passage way. this makes a lot of sense to me and i am not certain that this is not a possibility. this may also be the smartest way and you may have to stop traffic routinely. that is not part of this development. that is part of the planning and as a concession, i ask for them to put some of the paperwork in to show the relationships to the other parts of the plan. >> in order to help for this to be a successful neighborhood rather than an isolated island, this is our responsibility to ask those questions. there is a lot of land in there. >> do you wish to address this issue? >> i represent -- moore stole my thunder. we have an interest in making the passage, as pedestrian- friendly, and we have been working to make certain of this as best we can. g

antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> no. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that motion passes on a vote of 4-3 with commissioners antonini, fong, and miguel voting against. on the variance. >> thank you. dan snyder acting zoning administrator here on behalf of scott sanchez. first off, commissioners, i'd like to close the public hearing on the variance as well. what i would like to do in this case is take the matter under advisement. i would say that i am inclined to grant the rear yard and front setback variances. there's some unanswered questions with respect to the dwelling unit exposure variance, so i look forward to working with the sponsor and with staff to get these questions answered. just really quickly, some housekeeping matters. no decision is final on these variances until a letter is issues. that letter brings with it a 10-day window during which it may appeal to the board of appeals and if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please give their name and contact information to the secretary or to staff and we'll make sure you get a copy of it. thank you. >> ok. thank you very much. commissioners,

antonini? commissioner antonini: no. secretary: commissioner borden? stepped away. commissioner fong? aye, commissioner moore,. [the motion passed] secretary: the motion passed 5-1 with commissioner antonini voting against. commissioners, you are now on item no. 8, case no. 2011.00 84c. >> before you is a request for continual use authorization to convert the ground floor unit to a new full-service restaurant and bar establishment with an outdoor activity area located at 741 valencia street. since your packets were distributed on april 21, staff has received one additional email from the adjacent neighbor to the south. she has concerns specifically related to drainage, maintenance and structural issues. she is currently working with d.b.i. and the project sponsor to resolve her concerns. per the advice of the city attorney, staff is proposing terrible findings that clarify the use of terms that are normally used in relation to ceqa impact only. this language was emailed to you in the memo dated april 26. i will read the language into the record. to be inserted into the preamble of the motion immediately after the ceqa determination, any disuvings concerns related to noise and order in thi

on that motion, commissioner antonini: -- antonini aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner olague: thank you, commissioners, on the various. >> on the matter of the variants, inclined to grant condition, and if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please give your name and address to the secretary. commissioner olague: thank you. we're going to hear item 9 after item 15. at that time, we are hearing 16 and 17, which all relate to wireless, so we may as well do it then. we're going to hear 14 now. >> ok, thank you. commissioners, item 14 is case to thousand nine. 0646c for 524 howard st. -- 2009.0646c. >> the request before you is to continue operation of an existing temporary parking lot. if granted, the request will extend the operation for an additional two years, which is the maximum length of entitlement permitted by a planning code for a temporary service parking lot within the district. a parking lot was first approved in 2005, but the term of the original conditional use authorization expired in 2007. the law has been in continuous operation

antonini? >> commissioner antonini: i went to denver last week. we hear about learning from european cities about things to do in san francisco. we can also learn from american cities. for one thing, this is a city and county. this is a little bit less dense. the population is about 600,000. 60 square miles of this is the airport. and the law means that they have to include their airport in this city and the county. the other interesting thing is that they have district supervisors and the column city council members. they have 11 districts, with a total of 13 and two at large. they have had it this way for 30 years. it is interesting that the number came out to be 11 or the district. the parking controls are minimal compared to the ones that we have, and we are obliged to put in residential parking. they want to minimize the surface parking lots, to put this underground or in a less visible location. but there is little traffic relative to san francisco. there are many factors but one of them is that you can drive very easily without going through denver, where this is more difficult than in san francisco. it is noticeably clean as far as the streets. you do not see any graffiti and they are doing things right in that regard. they have people with challenges. i did spend a couple of days. i want to thank the director that i spoke to at length, and i have a conversation with steve in jordan, the comprehensive planning manager for the city and county of denver, the equivalent of the planning commission. we did use some homes that were for sale. this was a hundred thousand dollars, and i do not know the average sale price. there are many factors. you can convert your property from rental to an ownership at will, and there is no rent control. by will do more research on what is happening in denver. we will find out what they're doing right and try to learn from this, as a list of things that they are doing right that they could learn from us. >> it has been a long time since we've heard a status report on planning. i had a meeting last week and this is up to the staff. i think that we will calendar something in the future. i do not know when this will be communicated to staff. they may want to bring something forward. >> on the 20th, i attended the historic resources survey meeting, and this was interesting for a number of reasons. there were several staff members there, making presentations, with several tables of various sections within the survey. so it could explain these to those in attendance. this was on the staff of one of the supervisors. i was there with three members of the public. they were holding another on shot -- saturday, one member of the public asked three questions, and then we left. i will complement the staff on one of the best presentations on historic survey, and i have been in a number of these public meetings. this is by far the best that i have seen. the power. slides were well done, showing the mapping and the examples. it is a shame that this was wasted on a lack of public participation. i had discussions with people during the past week, and an item that had been before us, one year ago or so, the extension of the school, in california -- there was a dedication of the new extension, and the green wall is the best example. he still had to throw in a lot, but this is the best example i have seen in san francisco, this is the best that i have seen. the assembly building works, and it was just nice to see something that you have reviewed, and finding this come to fruition. >> commissioner? >> i found this very informative, and i am concern about the wireless and and and the master plan for these companies. with the kind of hardware that is out there, what needs to happen, and let thought was most interesting, is that the handsets have exceeded the technology. there is the need to upgrade its equipment to get coverage. i would recommend taking this appointment as well. >> i attended the monday evening dedication -- and this was amazing, to really see the theater for the first time, with students performing. and i saw this off-broadway in new york. this was so amazing. this is fostering creativity in teaching, and i think everyone should go to performance. this looks like the most beautiful wildflower meadow. this is very proud, and i am proud we helped to bring us along. >> i did have a meeting with the neighbors, i think this is 1945 -- this was a very interesting meeting with them last night. this is one of the homes approximating the property. and i was a little bit late. i was there but i was missing the meeting that was scheduled for the planning commissioners and others involved in the project. they had the prospective parents night, and this was 30 years too late. i like what they did their and this is very nice. commissioner moore: i was wanting a status on the eagle. i have an e-mail from members of the public and i think that this is an issue that the historic preservation commission is looking at, and i would like some kind of a status. something that would be indoors, not that this is something that will come before us. but they were looking at a possible cultural status or something. and also, somebody asked me about, maybe this is something for another day. austin, texas. there is a street dedicated to night music and entertainment, sixth street. years ago, there was a conversation starting with the 11th street, and something was there. this is something i wanted to explore a little bit more. it seems to me that it would be good to have a street, or something that is safe or nighttime news and entertainment. also, i spoke earlier today with mario of the youth commission. at some time, there would like to request a joint hearing, the talk about this issue. the experiences in terms of housing and other issues. this is something that the commissioners would look at. we have talked about family before here, and this is an issue that maybe we do not focus exclusively on. this is something for july or august. anyway, this came up. commissioner borden: i wanted to support olague's request for the late night idea nd the hea -- ide ana and the hearing on families. commissioner antonini: a couple of places, like the gaslamp in san diego, these are almost entirely entertainment, but it would be wonderful to have something like this. we are ready have this on broadway. >> maybe it in the 1980's. >> this is on the calendar. we better change the subject. >> if there are no comments, we can go to the director's report. the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the department's staff. the director is out of town this week, attending a conference in new york city. i do not have many announcements. i will remind everyone that the department's staff is making the final edits for the meeting on tuesday. the supervisor and a shaded the call for historic preservation issues. and the preservation -- the historic preservation calendar an item for the project with the first hearing in june. maybe you could help me with the exact date. specifically to clarify for the public, the aspects of the project related to -- preservation. >>

antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm going to maybe a motion to approve, but i would like to comment on the last speaker and just encourage the church that, if it's possible -- it's colonel not a condition, but if there's a way to do something with the front door, as time goes on, it might even -- i think one of the speakers representative of the church said we really would like to have a nicer entrance in there. so if it becomes economically feasible to do that, it would be a nice thing to do, but certainly not a condition at this point. but something to think about. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i'd encourage the church to take a look. one of the conditions of moving it to the opposite side, toward the corner, is that there's a utility room in the basement. and i don't know what's in there. but it might be really expensive to take out whatever is in there and that kind of thing. but if you can take a look at it, other than that it doesn't seem to be, on the face of it, having looked at this just for this particular approval, any reason that it couldn't be switched. but, you know, it's not a condition. but we'd encourage you to kind of take a look at it, if you could. president olague: commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval with an encouragement to the project sponsor to look at possibly moving the front entrance to another location if that proves to be possible. on that commission, commissioner antonini. aye. >> aye. >> aye. commissioner moore has stepped away from the room. commissioner sugaya. aye. aye. aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on -- >> i was going to ask that we take a 10-minute recess. i want to make sure that commissioner moore is here for the next discussion because it's based on clarification. president olague: the commission is taking a 10-minute recess. [7:37 p.m..] . . . . come too its fruition with the completion of the theser. so the theater's opening was remarkable. . . . . . president olague: ok, the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you are on item number 13, for 3987 20th street. and this is a hearing to clarify a previous planning commission decision. it was on a d.r. case adopted february 3, 2011. the building permit application proposed to construct a roof deck and a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling. it's also in the delores heights specia

antonini? commissioner antonini: commissioner moore, what would your date be for the continuance? commissioner moore: there is only one person with that answer in the room is secretary avery who has the paper in her hands there. secretary avery: it definitely will be a week or two and probably looking closer to june 9. >> that is fine. president olague: so on the motion for continuance of the item to june 9 and the public hearing to remain open? secretary avery: and i will say if the calendar is not closed for the 9th, let me remind you you have ceqa briefing in the morning. president olague: as an informational item. so that will be removed. secretary avery: that is gone? thank you. that makes it better. okay. on the motion for continuance -- commissioner antonini: staff is going to -- not just commissioner apt apt ant's -- not just commissioner antonini's concern and if staff can look at the definition of what is and isn't more clearly, that would help. >> thank you for the clarification. i wanted to understand clear enough what we were supposed to be doing. president olague: does the board of appeals have a dicht s diffet of rules? i thought we had the same set of rules we were all supposed to be following honestly, because i was perplexed by the way the decision was overturned. secretary avery: the motion on the floor is for continuance to june 9. president olague: and i believe commissioner borden will be gone. commissioner borden: no, i will be here. president olague: great. secretary avery: on that motion, commissioner apt ant. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> no. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> aye. >> that motion passed 5-2 with commissioners fong and sugaya voting against if ite

antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i'm in favor of the proposals before us and as we know, development agreements in particular move with the project are not with a particular sponsor, particular developer, and if these change, the obligation is still there both for all the public benefits and all the things that we're requiring and this is actually often advantageous because law changes may occur and they may occur that are disadvantageous to the general public but the development agreement takes priority, so -- and i think this is a very good development agreement and we've read through it, we've heard what it has in it, and so i don't have any concerns about the fact that there could be another builder, another horizontal developmenter that may occur during the process of treasure island being built, not that that is necessarily going to happen and we've seen this in other projects certainly with mission bay and as we move forward with park merced, the same principles would apply. president cheng:commissioner sugaya

antonini: the section was 101.5. am i protect on that or not? >> i'll find it. commissioner antonini: ok. and then i think the other thing was we talk in policy 1.10 and it is support new housing where people can rely upon public transportation, walking and bicycling, which i think there was a lot of interest in putting that statement in there. but it talks about, especially affordable but i think it should be, you know, both affordable -- all housing i think, should, you know, have this preference toward situation where if we have a chance to site it closer to available transit probably is the best place to site it. i didn't want to make it exclusive only to affordable housing. i don't think there is too much else here. one important thing in section 9.1, where we're talking about building -- preserving affordable housing and i think i would like to see, you know, the idea that we make sure that as you mentioned earlier in your comments that, you know, the housing that we preserve, existing housing, that it be safe and seismically sound and functional. and that we make sure that we're no

antonini? commissioner antonini: i was on muni yesterday going downtown about 7:45 from westport on and i was lucky to get on the train and it went by a couple of places where there wasn't enough room for people to get in at stations further down. there are a lot of people who ride muni and what we need to do as other cities have, particularly denver, i mentioned earlier, lots of light rail going in all over denver and out to suburban areas and they have a metropolitan plan a little like b.a.r.t. but their citywide transportation is part of a region transportation system that might be something some day we may be able to do in the bay area and we're not duplicating each other as is often the case. >> commissioners, protect me if i'm wrong. i heard the motion by commissioner moore but did not hear a second. >> that was me. secretary: on the motion for approval. commissioner moore: secretary avery, the city attorney is asking for your attention. >> thank you. president olague, kate stacy from the city attorney's office. i want to make sure i understood the motion to include this exploration of the pr

antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree that it is quat and consistent. i would like to answer -- is adequate and consistent. i think mr. cooper spoke to a lot of those but comments were made to the effect that you know, a lot of this is landfill as is most of downtown san francisco, which did quite well in the earthquake of 1989. i think it is not the landfill but how the landfill is treated and i'm quite impressed by the measures that are being proposed to compact about 125 or 130 acres of the land that needs compaction to strengthen them to build areas around three miles on the outside and have it be two feet above the level of downtown san francisco. for those concerned about the future residents, they will be safer with the measures that are being taken than they are now today. i think it has been 10 years in the process and i think it is time to move ahead on this. on a couple of other issues, i think mr. cooper spoke about the traffic impacts and the mitigations and where they are not mitigateable, i think the benefits that are gained outweigh the

antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree that it is quat and consistent. i would like to answer -- is adequate and consistent. i think mr. cooper spoke to a lot of those but comments were made to the effect that you know, a lot of this is landfill as is most of downtown san francisco, which did quite well in the earthquake of 1989. i think it is not the

antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. maybe i can ask mr. -- the planner for this. sorry. just answer that last speaker, about -- i'm looking at this page about provision of open spails. off and on-site. apparently this is the way -- the way it's structured is allowable. maybe you can explain the way this open space is being done. >> as was just pointed out, i was not the original planner on this project, but i will do my best. my understanding is that they are not providing the full amount of open space on the site for all the units as required by the code, which is what is triggering the exception that was originally granted. but the concept is that they would use the public open space, which would be the working of lansing street, since it is directly adjacent to the protect, that that would act as open space and also open spaces available to the residents of the project. but that is not all that the planning code requires. commissioner antonini: thank you. that's how i read it, too, but we are able to grant that exemption. and if we feel the benefits outweigh the exemptions, that's one of the things we could grant. i'm supportive of the project for a lot of the reasons that have already been stated. for those of you who may not have remembered, we approved this many years ago. i think it was 2006. it had the 265 units, 265 parking spaces and then it was revised with fewer units and fewer off-street parking spaces. now we've gone up to a new high in number of units at 320, but we've gone up to the original number of parking spaces that were allowed. i think we're getting a lot of benefits by doing this. we're going to get about $4 million additional into the housing fund because we have more unit and it's done by unit count and the number sold, and that's the competence sa tore amount of money that has to go into the fund. i am even couraged by the fact that the project sponsor has spoken about flexibility, and it could end u

antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you for the testimony and i want to express my total support for this project and i think everyone in this room has total support for the project. i think some of us feel, or what is really before us is what is the most appropriate height, density and other things and that's really what we're discussing tonight. everyone is very supportive. i'll give you one reason why. i don't know how many read the report from larkin street but it was very alarming and it shows what a need there is. apparently, there were an average of 1,313 young people who went into foster care per year in san francisco between 2008-2010. and according to that figure, that represented 10.8% of the children in san francisco. i'm not sure if that's correct. i think it's a number equivalent to. because apparently about 58% of the young people came from outside san francisco and 42% came from within san francisco. but regardless of how the statistics are, the need is a great one? and of course as these young people reach age 18, they have needs and want of the primary needs is housing. however,

antonini. commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner miguel. certainly there are things we can discuss when we talk about the project itself and the different distributionings of the space in the playgrounds. but i think that all of these alternatives were very thoroughly analyzed in the e.i.r. and i agree, we should certify it. president olague: commissioner fong, did you have anything to add? ok. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i just wanted to respond to the public's comment on the e.i.r. sounding more like a marketing issue or sounding more promotional. that is, i think, a pretty common phenomenon we have observed on many others. and it might be kinds of sad if we look back at the way it was. but we have many e.i.r.'s in front of us which are continually being criticized for the same thing. and again, we all find ourselves feeling responded to or bundled in a generalized comments. i myself have not seen anything which really rises to the level of where i would be really concerned about an incompleteness. the one thing which i have thought about, but i have not heard any input from the city attorney as well, is the draft e.i.r. in previous hearings is the issue about the triangle parcel being disallowed for other use, other than open space, and that the -- the use of bond funds would not allow for demolition. i have not heard anything to this. i have never seen this even being an issue in the e.i.r. and while the public spoke to that and i'd like to acknowledge it, i could ask the city attorney to give us some guidance, but i have not really been able to view that as an argument against this particular project. so if perhaps the city attorney would be able to speak to that, then we'd have this out of the way. >> john from the city attorney's office. the eminent domain question and the questions about the bond issues are really not part of the discussion. they're not part of the analysis, so to speak in, the e.i.r., because they don't lead to physical environmental consequences. however, both of those issues were addressed in the e.i.r. or the comments and responses. i've actually marked a section of the comments and responses. it's on page 36. where we respond specifically to the eminent domain issue and the land use compatibility. i'd have to search through here to see where we've discussed the bond issue, but at this point there are no bond monies being used towards the demolition of the library at this point. so it's an issue that is something in the future. it's not now. and i'm sure the library is well aware of that issue. commissioner moore: i appreciate your comment. at least for the public record. it opens a question which has been posed by a number of people, and i take your answer as the answer people need to have. having said that, i would support the motion on the e.i.r. as it stands. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for certification of the final e.i.r. on that motion, commissioner antonini? aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. thank you, commissioners. the e.i.r. has been certified. [applause] commissioners, you are now on your regular calendar with item 5 a, b, c. the north beach library -- public library and joe dimaggio playgrounds master plan at 701 lombard street and 2000 mason street. consideration of adoption of findings under california environmental quality act, 5-b is consideration of a motion making general plan consistency findings, and 5-c is a request for a zoning map amendment. president olague: commissioner moore, you had a comment? commissioner moore: yes, for public disclosure, the architect and i sat together on the porch design review. however, she has never approached me discussing the project, has never slit ted any feedback from me formally or informally and i'd like to disclose this to the public as not constituting any bias on my point. >> good afternoon, president olague, commissioners and the planning staff. before you are three actions related to th

antonini? commissioner antonini: i would like to move to approve a resolution -- adoption of a resolution raising the cumulative shadow limit for gene friend recreational center. do we have to state a specific number for that amount in this resolution? >> yes. the resolution is actually crafted to allow an increase in the budget sufficient to -- that would be efficient to accommodate the additional shadow from the project. if i could just make one quick clarification, and this was touched upon by miss borden, there are actually only two action that's would be before you potentially as to increase the shadow budget for the specific park and remove the specific park to correct the error that is currently shadowed more than 20%. the last item i mentioned to you previously was an error about making a sort of larger process change for future parks in this circumstance. so if you're inclined to approve the motion, we would delight any language related to the larger process change. commissioner antonini: so my motion is then inclusive of both raising the shadow allotment and also correcting the error that had overstated the existing shadow situation at gene friend park. >> right. you can take those two actions today based on the way the item that is noticed to the public. >> and those can be combined in this motion? >> correct. 12k3w4r thank you. that is a motion. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya? >> seconded. >> sorry. i jumped ahead of the game. >> it seemed a little backwards to me. if there was a rem dumb that everyone, both commissions agreed upon at one point and error found in that memorandum, you would think we would have the memorandum before us to consider prior to adopting any changes to it with respect to one specific project. so it would seem we should have had a prior hearing to this one in order to be able to consider what staff had discovered through, i might add, a consultant hired by the project sponsor, i believe. therefore we had no particular verification of

antonini: no, we're on the right project. the one that was just called now. >> so yes, we would need recusal. president olague: so moved. >> second. president olague: on the motion for recusal of commissioner antonini. [roll call] >> commissioner antonini is recused. >> good afternoon, honorable commissioners. i'm here representing thomas coin. this is a local family development proposal. through the last few years, we worked closely with staff. this proposal has been through many it rations with building height and design. we would like to thank them for working with us to arrive at the current 40-foot-tall residential building. this infill project will allow 12 new family-sized units on an underutilized surface parking lot on a relatively short block. although the proposal is a pipeline project, we believe this application meets the intent and the spirit of the new zoning district and the controls set forth for the residential unit size, mix, off street parking and usable open space. this building will act as a buffer between residential districts in an area surrounded bay vibrant mix of uses. as mr. sanchez stated on april 6, the historic preservation commission concurred with staff that the project is compatible and appropriate in

antonini. commissioner avent nene: thank you -- commissioner antonini: thank you for a wonderful presentation. as you know, we preserved a number of appleton libraries, we reserve -- preserved a number of those in marina, and in my neighborhood, i think they were probably a little better suited to their -- the use as this one. number two, it's kind of appropriate that we are considering something for the joe dimaggio playground since this is the 70th anniversary of his 56-game hitting streak and there's a great book out now called "56" that talks about that, but it doesn't just talk about the streak, it paints a good picture of 1941 and what was going on in san francisco and new york and throughout the united states. in fact, some people commented that we should erect a statue of diimagine yow at the playground, i think that would be a great thing, i'm sure that would fit into the plan someplace, the giants have put up statues of some of their players, but diimagine yow never played for the giants. the other issue is the distribution of the hard scape playing area and i do notice that they lef

antonini: second. >> the motion for approval of items 10 and 11. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. vice president miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye. >> those items have been approved as the were proposed. president olague: we are going to hear 121 golden gate first, and then we will go to item nine. >> we are now at public comment on items that have already been heard and the public hearing has been closed. this public comment category relates only to item 12. in your opportunity to address item number 12, each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? ok. public comment on items for the public hearing has been closed is closed. >> thank you. commissioners, since you are taking item 12 before item 9, we go on to consideration of findings and actions. the public hearing is for 121 golden gate avenue, the st. anthony foundation and mercy housing project. before you now is the certification of the final environmental impact report. >> this is a division of the planning department. this is the certification of a final environmental impact report for the proposed project of 121 golden gate ave. the draft eir was published on december 8, 2010. the public hearing was on january 13, 2011. public comment closed on january 24, 2011. the responses document was published and distributed on march 10, 2011. the draft motion for eir certification was distributed to you by e-mail on march 14. if you need copies, i have them with me. the eir found the demolition of the existing building at 121 golden gate avenue would result in a project-specific unavoidable impact on a historical resource that could not been a ticket to -- could not be mitigated to below significant levels. it would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact as well. therefore, the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding consideration, pursuant to the california environmental quality act, should the commission to approve this project. the planning department requests to adopt the motion before you, which certifies that the contents of the final eir are adequate and accurate and the procedures comply with the provisions of ceqa, ceqa guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation, unless you have any questions. president olague: thank you. do we hear the whole project now? >> it is in the hands of the commission. public hearing is closed. vice president miguel: i move for certification. commissioner antonini: second. >> on the motion for certifying the final environmental impact report for 121 golden gate ave. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> that motion passed unanimously. would you like to take care of the -- 13 a, b, and c prior to going to nine? this is 121 golden gate ave. it is a consideration of adoption of findings of the california environmental quality act. it is a request for a conditional use authorization with exceptions as provided under the planning code. it is a request for variantce. the zoning administrator will consider item 13 c the request for variants. >> i am rick crawford, department's staff. this is a request for a conditional use authorization and 4 ceqa findings approval -- and for ceqa findings approval for the project to demolish the existing two-story building and construct a 10-story building with a dining hall