president fong: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: this is a great report and i'm not going to echo what's been said about 16th. we all have really strong feelings about that. i have a question, what's the difference between a cycle track and bicycle lane? >> we're using terms, there's no federal guidance on this. a bicycle lane is a lane that's striped on the side of the street, that's usually adjacent to the curb or adjacent to a parking lane. what we're calling cycle tracks, they're protected bicycle lanes that have the safety posts. these are more permanent designs where there would be either a little bit elevated off the road or just below the level of the sidewalk, traditionally used in copenhagen and amsterdam and european and asian cities, as well, where they have the facilities where you are literally separated from the streets. in the u.s., they're called cycle tracks. i think it's the term of art being used right now. commissioner borden: i guess it's surprising how costly it is to do -- out of curiosit

commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i move to approve item consent. >> second. >> on the motion for approval of 2060 fillmore street, as proposed, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden, commissioner miguel, commissioner moore, commissioner sugaya, commissioner wu, commissioner fong. it passes unanimously. are there any other matters? president fong: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i want to a knowledge the update on 83296 street. i want to make a point to commend her for doing as she did. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: a couple of items noting an article on monday that i thought was quite well written and talked about the legalization of uses in pdr the zones that are either office or nonconforming. i thought it was particularly interesting and i understand the use committee is targeting. i'm not sure what they will end up doing, but they may consider extending this to the end of the year. that will be good, whenever they come up with. it is an issue that we have to lo

commissioner wu: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: maybe you can talk about what this map you want us to approve has on it. do we have a copy? of our old presentation. >> it is not on the map but the description -- two documents. one is the zoning map. the other is the code. they appear -- the phoenix streets appear on the map. in the map i give you i did not give you that because it would be too complicated. it is described in that package of what street, to what street along embarcadero. it is up to you. it can be considered the next time. this is in consistency with your last action. >> you could draw a distinction between the mapping we're voting on as part of this measure, as opposed to the establishment or the -- of the sud's and why this is consistent with what we passed earlier. >> make a distinction? >> we're trying to get some clarification. >> in the memo i give you a described -- i describegive youi described -- this is one of the items you approved. the suggestion i made was to allow that portion to g

commissioner borden. commissioner borden: she is the next-door neighbor. what is the yard's size? what is the distance between the yeard -- the yards? >> she is the property to the north. commissioner borden: i think we have a compliance. >> her lot is the same size as the subject. commissioner borden: great. looking at this, it is actually a very reasonable project. it is regrettable that there was a mistake on the application and it did not truly reflect the tendency at the time. the basis for the motion -- for the recommendation actually has not to do with that. the basis for recommendation is related to the net gain of dwelling units. there is a line about no displacement of tense. i think they have explained the situation. if they were in violation, the rent board would be the ones to deal with that. we do not have jurisdiction over that period that is not something the planning commission could take up. that would not be a reason for us to continue it. from the planning process, the fact that we are in a net gain of a unit is a benefit to the city's overall housing. you coul

commissioner borden: i just wanted to go back to this. in the c district, all signs would be limited 40 feet in height. obviously, that makes sense for a lower rise building. when you are talking about high- rises, many of which are over 100 feet in height, some already have signs. a lot of them have assigned as the building them. fidelity has a big fidelity sign on their building. is that the building name or a business line? scott sanchez: the name of the business on the building would be a business sign. there are some signs downtown that are clearly above 100 feet. those are grandfathered in, particularly under the planning code. when you change the business son, you need to comply with current code. but there was something in the 90's that allowed a few signs. the u.s. bank sign is one that is legal. they were able to change to washington mutual. other way around. under the proposal, it would lower it down to 40 feet. commissioner borden: i guess my point is it would not make sense for a building that is 150 feet to have a sign at 40

commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. that motion passes 4-2. may i call item 2a? the proposal to adopt the environmental quality act. is there a motion? commissioner antonini: i moved to adopt the findings. >> second. >> it is for adoption of the findings of the california environmental quality act. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes 4-2. i will turn over item 2b to you. item 2b is the ferry park request to consider jointly with the rec and park commission to establish a cumulative shadow. i will call the roll if there is a motion. commissioner miguel: i moved to adopt the item. >> second. >> there is a motion for adoption. the establishment of a cumulative shadow limit. comm aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. that motion passes. >> we are still on item 2b and we need a motion f

and for the record, commissioner borden is here. ok, so those items are before you. i don't have any speaker cards to speak to the proposed continuances. president fong: any public comment? >> if you can speak directly? president fong: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: move to continue items 1, 2 a and 2b to the dates proposed. >> second. >> i think there might be public comment. >> i didn't know i needed to make out a card. president fong: would you like to speak to one of the items on the continuance? >> and you're speaking only to the proposed continuance, not to the merits of the case? >> yes. >> my name is robert coolie. i own a couple of rental houses across the street from 147 andover. my only reason for appearing, i don't understand the delay with this case. this thing's been going on for a year and a half. i don't -- i'm not addressing the merits, i'm not taking any sides to the actual case but i would ask that the commission hear this case and make a decision one way or the other. i fully expect that the losing party will go to the board of appeals, a

seeing none, commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i move to approve items six and seven on the consent calendar. >> four and five. commissioner borden: four and five. i'm sorry. >> is there a second? >> second. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners. on the motion for approval of items four and five as they have been proposed -- [roll call] thank you, commissioners. you are now on your regular calendar beginning with item number six. case number 2011.0189 d for 721 beach street. president fong: commissioners, i asked if i could be recused from this item. commissioner miguel: i move to recuse commissioner fong. >> second. >> there's a motion for recusal of commissioner fong. [roll call] >> commissioner fong is recused. president fong: vice president wu will chair this item. >> good evening, commissioners. gwen cabrera for department staff p the case before you is a mandatory discretionary review requested by this planning commission at the property at 721 beach street located at a c-2 community business district i

commissioner borden: i think typically when we do- declarations, and this is a more extensive environmental reverie, and i understand some of the characterization's may not be accurate, but for the purpose of ceqa, we are not at all voting for the project or against it. we are making no judgment of the appropriateness of it being of the site, and as the other critical factor want people to understand. we are not approving or disapproving the document. we are silent at it, but we do not have the project before us to really no intent region -- to really know it, the close it is often very different because the project description changes from the beginning to the end, so based upon the requirements of ceqa, and i have not heard anything that would make us say this is an adequate document, particularly because for these types of documents it is difficult to declare- documentation. had this been toxic use or some use the -- some indication this land would be unique in terms of environmental relationship, we would want for their review, -- further review, but we have nothing to indicate this is

commissioner borden: on the march 1 ministersutes, it says n peperal, and is a pep rally. >> pep ralley. >> the grammar is all screwed up, but we will figure that out later. >> to correct the name and to correct a pep rally. any other modifications? >> move the minutes with corrections was noted. >> on the motion? [calling votes] thank you, commissioners. are there any other commission matters? directors report, directors announcement? >> are want to mention -- i want to mention i have several questions about the proposed new board -- billboard on the building the happens to be owned by the department, and there is a proposal to replace the existing off from its advertising side on the eastern side of the building. just to be clear, that is a legal sign. it is legally permitted to exist again, and the proposal in front of the city, the city is negotiating a new contract, and it would be substantially smaller, because it would have to comply with new state regulations regarding distance from state highways, and it is actually part of highway 0101, so there was a sign it had never existed

commissioner sugaya, commissioner fong, commissioner wu, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden, commissioner sugaya. everybody is present. no items were proposed for a continuance. the item number 5 on your calendar, case number 2011.1.23b, the salesforce item, the request for allocation of square footage, the project sponsors have asked for an indefinite continuance of that item. because the commissioners, this is a letter on your calendar, and it is last minute. there might be people who might have wanted to be here for this item. i ask that you continue it at this time but at the call of the item. commissioner fong: that is fine. >> is not aware of any other item on the calendar being proposed for a continuance. commissioner fong: any public comment on items of continuous? commissioner antonini: this is on the next item, which is not been called yet. >> ok, thank you. with that, we can move on to commissioner's questions and matters. are there any? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. some information in the news. some good, some not as good. but those who

commissioner borden: i think this is interesting. i would love to talk to staff about what the policy says around vaporizing versus not vaporizing. i do not know if the code has anything in that that you could eliminate us on, regarding discretion in that point. i think there is a difference between vaporizing and not vaporizing. at the same time, i want to understand better what our discretion is in that space. if you take away the vaporization, the bigger issue is not exceptional or extraordinary. the location is not exceptional or extraordinary. with the are you the vaporization is, but the location itself is not. -- we could argue the vaporization is, but the localization is not. being silent on the point about the vaporization, i spend a lot of time on this block. the red cross -- the red cross, where i volunteer, is right across the street. the killing and cravaack issues have been primarily -- cueing and traffic issues have been primarily around academy of art. if people are vapor rising, i would hope they are not than driving

commissioner borden: there are buildings with signs in the downtown corridor. scott sanchez: a provision allows for a few of those signs, put in in the late 90's, which allows some of those signs to be replaced. they are not fully nonconforming. it is a little complicated. generally, a department policy is that these add to visual clutter, and the director can speak to it further. it is not something we want to continue on. commissioner borden: it sounds like the ones that exist would be legal nonconforming. scott sanchez: they would not be able to change coffee to a new business line. -- copy to a new business line. would it be easier if we -- president fong: would it be easier if we went through this by topic? otherwise, we are going to ping pong back and forth. commissioner moore: i think it is easier. i fully agree with you. sings -- signs, what is missing are some visual examples. our visual landmarks are partially tied into designs, including the palace, a hotel, where we work downtown. signs help us know where we are. to understand what we really mean, i

commissioner borden: i am kind of confused. it opens up the specter -- the challenge and i definitely recognize there is an issue, are crowding issue and an inconsistency that has happened here. -- a routing issue and and and consistency that has happened here. there could be thousands of places where people are being told it is no longer valid. that is what concerns me here more than anything. there has to be a process by which -- it sounds like the process will fix this kind of thing -- but it is hard to penalize the project sponsor. it is to the letter of the permit that was granted. they were able to undo -- renew. i recognize that what seems to be the issue is the secretary of interior standards of today it versus the standards in 2001. that is where we have always stood. when something has been approved, they follow the letter of what was required of them. it is unfortunate that perhaps it was not routed in a different way when it went up for renewal. i cannot seek penalizing the project sponsor for what is a problem that

commissioner borden: i support the provisions here. i guess there would not be any sort of retroactive application of policy. there are a lot of programs with bicycle companies that allow employees to take bike's overnight, because they do not use their bikes over night. businesses could take bicycles overnight, for their employees to bicycle back and forth. that would be kind of an enforcement issue, but that is another option that does exist. those companies -- scott sanchez: like a car-share program? commissioner borden: they make available these bicycles. the company pays for it or their employee does. they can take the bicycle overnight from the hotel to their home and bring it back for their work shift. just so you know, that does exist. i do not know how you can force that. i do not know if it makes it more complicated. president fong: any other general overall comments? commissioner miguel: i was going to make a motion. i would move the department recommendations with two specific comments. one on the schenic sp -- scenic speci

aye. -- commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye.y. you are now on item 10 for 1245 south van ness avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners. brittany bendix, planning department staff. this is a request for a conditional use authorization to pursue a retail grocery store doing business as fresh and easy. this is within the nc-3 and rh-1 districts, 40-x/50-40-x height. this will divide into a grocery store and a commercial retail space. this involves removal of approximately 16 off-street parking space, and we will reconfigure the law to provide 45 parking spaces, bicycle spaces, and to improve traffic flow. this was originally scheduled on february 23. the commission moved to continue this item to today at the request of supervisor campos, to allow a project sponsored to meet with opponents in the hope a compromise could be negotiated. my understanding is that meeting was scheduled for last night. however, it was canceled earlier this week at the request of the project if opponents. i have some e-mails that have been presented to me.

commissioner borden: i am kind of confused. it opens up the specter -- the challenge and i definitely recognize there is an issue, are crowding issue and an inconsistency that has

commissioner borden, athenaeum. commissioner moore, no. commissioner wu, yes. this issue will come back to you on april 5. the vote was 5-1. as i announced, the project sponsors have asked you to continue this in -- item indefinitely. >> salesforce has decided to suspend their current activities on the site at mission bay and out of -- have asked for an indefinite continuance. i talked to them to confirm this was the action they were requesting. the confirmed the would like an indefinite continuance. the application is still open. they do not know whether they will move ahead with the mission bay development. they are committed to staying in the city and will be looking at leasing space downtown. the reason for the suspension of the development activity in mission bay is they are growing at a pace they believe they need to accommodate sooner than when the mission bay buildings could be made available. i also confirmed with them, as you may know, they bought that land, right. the on 14 acres of land in mission bay. if they choose not to develop it, where of cour

commissioner borden: i had a question for staff. there was a mention of a violation of the law which is in a lawsuit. are there any violations that fresh and easy have against them related to a call? >> not that i am aware of. i cannot speak to the other sites with the exception of this one. commissioner borden: that is good. i have talked to other people. some like to shop at buy-rite. it is expensive, not everyone can afford to shop there. that is the choice i do make. i probably will not be a user of the fresh and easy but there are other people who clearly will be users of the fresh and dave -- fresh and easy, should it doing to this location. it is unfortunate that there is a real discourse with that community and -- the community and the representatives of fresh and easy and i hope there could be more dialogue if fresh and easy intends to do more work in san francisco. it is important to understand the community and what their needs are. we have had a struggle, we have gone back and forth on the issue of grocery stores. we hav