commissioner miguel: thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, we can now move on to general public comment. this category has a 15-minute time limit, and members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission with the exception of agenda items. agenda items may address -- may be addressed only at the time they are briefed on the calendar. each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes each, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am hear from the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. the draft environmental impact report for the beach shall athletic fields have been released. project removes over 7 acres of natural grass and replaces it with over 7 acres of artificial turf and 10 banks of 60-foot lights 150,000 watts. this project will be lighted every night of the year until 10:00 p.m

commissioner miguel: that is not part of the collection. commissioner sugaya: and to try to replace that thing with something we would be better off in the world. thank you. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion is to approve all the proposed actions before you and just for the record, i will state them. the motion is for approval of 11a, findings of the ceqa environmental quality act, 11b, consideration of the motion with the general plan and section 101.1 and 11b is the general plan amendment and item d to reclassify from public to downtown and question the northerly portion from mixed use -- >> if i could ask for a clarification to the inclusion of the language just -- in the general plan referral. thank you. >> with the inclusion of the new language that is provided by staff. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> thank you. commissioners. the motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now ready to hear 12, case 2005.1004e. the glen park community plan. you have had public comment on this item, today you h

>> aye. >> commissioner miguel? secretary avery: that motion passed 5-1 with commissioner antonini voting against and on the variance. >> and to close the public hearing of the item and i was not at the hearing on may 19 and kelly under was acting and i did restrew tape and was -- i did review the tape and am prepared to make a decision on that to grant the rear yard variance to tex tent that is required for the 1998 permit and with the design for the scope beyond the 1998 permit and to wrap up about what happens next. and your decision will be final and we would ask them to submitted revised plans and they can appeal that to the board of appeals and pursue enforcement action if they fail to respond. make to make clear what will happen next. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. i appreciate putting that to the record. commissioner miguel: is there any general public comment on items that are not on the agenda? none appearing, public comment is closed. and it's 4:13. we're finished. >> amazing. >> yes. >> we hav

commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i move to certify. >> second. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion is before you for the certification of the final environmental impact report. commissioner antonini. awe aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> missioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> thank you. secretary avery: commissioners, that item has been sertfied. you are on 13 a, b, c, and d and e for the glen park community plan, adoptions of the finding of the california environmental quality act and the resolution amending the general plan pursuant to san francisco charter 4.105. 13c is consideration for resolution of the amending the planning code and for the land use, height and bulk, density, and parking and established one new zoning district and make related amendments to the planning code necessary to implement the general plan as proposed to be amended pursuant to the glen park community plan. 13d, a resolution amending the zoning map for the san f

commissioner miguel: sorry. christine grif fit, danny campbell, david nichol. >> good afternoon, again, commissioners. christine griffith and i want to reiterate again that the owners of the hotel are not opposed to the project as a whole. they want to make sure their concerns are heard and address ing and acknowledged and that hasn't really bun done. i'm going talk briefly about hunt lane which has been referred to periodically as landlocked and described in the document as a particular place for the firefighters to park. what that description leaves out is that the main part of the middle of that block, which is referred to as the notoma pad, the underlying pad is owned by boma but they have granted an ease tonight the public which has the same league significance as a public street and by vac e vacating the portion of hunt street, you are also vacating the legally public street that run through the middle of the block. our objections to the vacation of the hunt street has to do with in the long term access to

commissioner miguel: thank you. >> d.r.. >> in light of the fact that we haven't heard from the project sponsor, i would like them to go first and then we will speak. >> i don't know if you can go first. >> we don't know what he's going to say. how do i address what they are going to say? >> that means you don't have a comment. and you want them to go. >> i want them to go first and then i will speak. you want me to go first? >> that is the order. >> okay. this is a very unusual case and a very unusual proceeding. sue hester for the next door neighbor. and what i am going to put out here for the staff to give to you is photographs of the front of the building. and i will talk about them on the overhead. but here are the photos for you to pass around. there was no discussions for quite a while and we have been through a cycle and you have my brief. and my brief is it's very confusing dealing with this situation and no real substantive discussions or negotiations because they really don't want to talk and feel this is

commissioner miguel: thank you. are there any other speakers on this one? if not -- oh, yes. certainly. >> thank you very much. i am also speaking in favor of the proposed plan. secretary avery: could you state your name please? >> i am karen ar ron and we are looking at a plan that raises the height of the building a small amount and only in the back of the building and as stated it will be set back 39 feet from the street and we have reviewed the san francisco design residential design guidelines and we believe that our plan is in accordance with those. this is the only viable option for the location of our deck and we don't believe that it poses any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to light and air. and that is all. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. are there any additional speakers? if not, commissioners? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would move to not take d.r. and approve. >> second. commissioner miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: well, i talked an't

vice president miguel: the 19th of january. president olague: and the public hearing will remain open. commissioner antonini: can we comment in addition to the motion for a continuance? first of all, i really appreciated the testimony from the audience and people of all ages, with particular reference to the opportunities america affords us all. i really like to hear that and appreciate it. i feel the same way. i had the same concerns that commissioner miguel had. we need this opportunity to figure out what can be done in this instance. this is somewhat an internal decision between the school and the bureau of jewish education to figure out what can be done to perhaps solve this. some of the concerns i have had mentioned is the actual distance of the antennas from the school , the students. what are we really talking about here? the other concern would be the better we generation and the plant that runs the antennas, and what risks there are in case of any seismic event. these are things that need to be discussed and answered.

commissioner miguel: next speaker. >> hello, commissioners. my name is scott cooper and i am on the backside of the folsom street development and i have been sitting in on the neighborhood community meetings. and there are concerns of a fire station going in the area that is a bit more residential and we are hoping that they do what they can to be conscientious of one of the area's busiest fire stations and inevitably there will be noise but however they do the operations they be conscious of the people in the neighborhood. it is interesting to see the evolution of the particular site from the commercial uses in the 1980's and sweat job and grow op and the mini tower and now a fire station. personally i am kind of excited about this. it will serve the community better. as far as the rats and mosquitos, you can find the same thing at the location, so please keep working on it whatever you did at that the other location. and i would like to call on moma to meet the requirements for or to help with the requirements of 2% for public art that is ty

commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> before we go forward, if i could make an announcement -- generally, when we had certification, we have a special category for public comment on items that have been close. that is not on this calendar. because it is not, i would recommend that you go through your general public, the category and we open a public comment category for comments on this certification items. that would be for items 10 and 12. but i would recommend that you complete this public comment category without those, and then we open another public comment category to allow comments on this two items. >> so i will be back. >> thank you. >> linda chapman from nabi hill. i wanted to continue a subject i have mentioned before, which was concerned about the members of my community being pre-empted. they are considering being pre- empted by someone who will say they represent neighbors or this mysterious entity which calls itself from time to time the navajo coalition. i came in here for 1645 pacific,

commissioner miguel: [reading names] >> hello. i am a student at san francisco state, and i wanted to say that i approve the community plan. i think that keeping glen park cozy main characteristics and that will increase the pedestrian transit and by the accessibility and it is very important issue. while i generally agree the plan will result in positive change, i also believe discussion needs to be had about the policy in a plan which states that the san francisco public utilities commission and planning department should conduct a study to assess the feasibility benefits. viable daylight extremes can exist in the long run but only if there is a connection between restoration and stewardship because the good health of an urban stream cannot survive if it is neglected. when improving services in urban areas, however, placement of put the natural ground cover rate from un-moderate storm water can converge to the creek. a serious maintenance plan should be implemented to go forward. another issue that should be considered is the pr

commissioner miguel: you speak when that item is called. these are, as for items not on the agenda. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am revisiting an issue i raised last thursday. our request for reinstatement of the art deco rather than the modern big box design on the proposed cvs store -- i wanted to give you a status on this. commissioner antonini met with us, reviewed both plants, and he agrees that the original design is far superior, much more in character with our neighborhood. commissioner antonini and our neighborhood architect contacted the planner, who says he cannot do anything until he is directed to do so by his boss. calls to kelly by commissioner

commissioner miguel: thank you. any additional questions? if not, public comment is closed. >> just a question of clarity from me -- generally after we finish that category of questions for public comment, we take up the items themselves. do you want to delay that until we get to them on the calendar, or do you want to take them up now? >> we can take them up now. as long as people are here move through them. >> a cake, with that, commissioners, we are now going to go into your actions on closed items. a public hearing is closed. first item before you would be item 10, case to thousand 9.0291e -- case to thousand 9.0291e -- 2009.0291e. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am from the planning department's environment planning division. the item before you is the certification of a final environmental impact report for the san francisco modern art expansion. the project entails the demolition of the existing 67676 howard st. buildings. demolition of the vacant building at 955 folsom streets, relocation of five station one through that site and

i had the same concerns that commissioner miguel had. we need this opportunity to figure out what can be done in this instance. this is somewhat an internal decision between the school and the bureau of jewish education to figure out what can be done to perhaps solve this. some of the concerns i have had mentioned is the actual distance of the antennas from the school , the students. what are we really talking about here? the other concern would be the better we generation and the plant that runs the antennas, and what risks there are in case of any seismic event. these are things that need to be discussed and answered. those are some legitimate concerns that have been raised. the other thing that is very important, and this goes without saying, is there is already a perceived danger, be it real or not real. if it has an economic effect on this great institution that would cause it to be less viable, that is really important to do. i know it is a preference. i know there has been a search. perhaps at&t can also work with you and there ma

commissioner miguel: this is strictly the eir we are talking about. the project will be before us at a later time, and the comments should be directed to the project itself. what we are considering now is the eir, whether it should be certified. >> if you want to speak to the project, can you wait until we finish with the eir's? we would very much appreciate that. if there's anyone else who really wants to speak to the eir, please come forward. for either of the items, 10 or 12. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an attorney here in san francisco. i am year on behalf of the entity that owns the w hotel. my comments are on the certification and final eir. you have a letter we submitted earlier this week on the same topic. all my clients generally are in support of the project, we feel strongly that the environmental review work has not been done adequately. we object to the certification and final eir because of the deficiencies we identified in the draft that have not been corrected. we believe the comments were not sufficient, and the new mitigat

commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. as you well know, this is that a key goal and an initiative of hours for years. in particular, i want to thank sophie for the great work she has done and walking us through where we are now. our general impression of this proposal is that it is not bad. but it is a kind of tim that response before very pressing civic challenges. higher education is one of the top four sectors of the city. we have 120,000 students in san francisco, and a reasonable case can be made that there are 50,000 beds right now. that need is being satisfied by craig's list in housing that is assumed to be family size rental stock. what we are hearing again and again is that the tools are having a lot of trouble meeting the housing needs. we just heard recently that you see hastings' turned away 25 students that were accepted for admission and had paid residential deposits. i have heard the same thing about the art institute of san francisco. i am hearing crazy stuff about the sc

commissioner miguel. as he has pointed out, with most of the speakers -- there is no new environmental discussion and we will see this at some time in the future. this is a fairly narrow question. the question is to continue the use of the kob hill masonic center, the same yousef has been in place since 1966. it seems with such a narrow question, certainly, three weeks to research this year and make certain that this is something that people are in favor of, i think that this is very reasonable. this is not in the midst of the holidays. there is always the opportunity to continue an item for the day of the hearing. this cannot be heard on that day. the commissioner found reason for the continuance, and we were to continue that item on the 17th. you cannot even begin the discussion on that day. i would ask the staff at the earliest possible time to get the staff report to the public so that they can have plenty of time to review this. and if there are any items that are not presently being made public, wit

miguel? >> a reluctant aye. moore votes against. sugaya is recused. commissioner miguel? commissioenr miguel: i appreciate the comments so far this morning. and i think that i agree with many of them. this commission is not an accreditation board. we do not determine if the university should or should not do, this is the internal governance, with many -- with the curriculum and everything else. this is not an eir hearing. bus polition -- pollution will come out at the hearing that will eventually be in front of us. we are dealing with the institutional master plan. i support the a original presentation about what the report is to do, and this is an odd type of document in the information, and yet this is expected with the unusual situation. the only unique action. the only action of that kind that i have ever heard of. the only one that comes to the floor of this commission. this is what was submitted. i consider a public relations booklet, masquerading this way. i just saw them come in, to the room. i have known him for sometime and i consider him friendly. his organizat

vice president miguel: i appreciate the work that has been done. the comments coming out of the health department statement interested me. your comments regarding schoolyards. traditionally, in san francisco, the school department can be characterized as miserly and not cooperative in as far as their dealings with the recreation and parks department. a few years ago, there was a little bit of movement. there has not been any, in my mind or to my knowledge, any real cooperation in that regard. i do not need any comments on it, i just urge you to try to get that together for the long run. i have a question and i think commissioner antonini refer to it briefly. it is on your objective 1.1. i may be misinterpreting or misleading it, but having been involved in the reconstruction of a number of buildings in recreation and parks department facilities, expansion of neighborhoods and facilities that did not conform to ada and other things, if you're going to expand them in order to accommodate ada and to make them fully usable in today's world, you're goin

o sea, que conozcas genteel medio, a luÍs miguel, claro q lo conozco.. >> me dais y pueden decir misa que yo sÉ lo que soy y que me locomprueb >>besitos, los quiero. >> gracia las que clarociones las hizo este fin de semana a la salida la ob teaal en la que rticipa aquÍ e mÉxico y temos en vivo a carmen m q desato todosos escÁndalos >> gracias porstar con nosotros. >> cramente escuchamos que adrite lanza un reto y dice bueno s tiene pruebas que las prente. >> ¿en quÉ csiste las pruebas?. >> la incohere, della primero me conoce y despuÉs no meme conoce. >> niegas rotundamente haber trabajado con ella. >> dÓnde estÁ la prueba que he trabajado conlla. >> eningÚn poe evento. >> quiero saber si mantienes en lo dic en la conferencia de prensa que hiciste. >> totalmente, totalmente segura. >> ya levantaste alna demanda?. >> estÁ en proceso. >> estÁ en proceso. >> okay. >> yo quiero saber si estos una campa como dice adrna fonsec si levantae una demaa es verdad que esostÁ en proceso, veo que vienes con uno de los abogados que apecieron aquÍ en las imÁgenes en l

president olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i appreciate the comments from the mayor and supervisor's office. and i am going to move for the recommendation with the modifications done by the department and add on that the recommendation that the legislation seriously consider expanding this citywide in total. i realize it's going to take a touch more time and the developers i have been in touch with have considering some of the small details been very affirmative actually and i think we heard that earlier today as well. and so i don't think there would be a great problem with it. and that would be the motion. >> second. olague r commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i want to thank ms. lieberman and mr. williams for being a living testimony to the success of the work in the early 80's. and couldn't be a better presentation than those people who actively thought it out and thought about it and see it success. i come from professional practice that created some of the buildings and discussed much of the art

i just want to perhaps support and elevate what commissioner miguel said. given the fact that we are here with a very complete, comprehensive, attractive imp's from other city institutions, i would like to say that this is barely in the lower tier. it looks good, have the right graphics cover, the snappy binding, the heavy cover, heavier than any part of the content that is what is expressed in here. this is basically a light weight pr document, using commissioner miguel's words. since the definition in the code does not require anything other than that, i regret an institution, which definitely is doing some good things, on its own, would not rise to the occasion to show what they are doing. that is, indeed, a more thoughtful description of themselves, more 4-looking mission statement of where minim expressing that they want to be a good citizen in city matters, which apparently they have not, given the violations. that is all watching old laundry. what bothers me is this imp makes it look like what architecture schools referred to as art 1. it tells me ab

commissioner miguel: we would not be able to make it retroactive? >> that's right. >> several buildings have not been entitled correctly. honda would have to come back for approvals. it is a question of them getting the entitlement to begin with. commissioner miguel: can we apply prohibition to the properties that they own? >> jube, because they have not received entitlements to convert both buildings. >> so on geary street where they own and building that has been converted from 24 units into student housing, that the academy or one of the entities owns -- if this passes, what the consequences -- if we stay with prohibition in not cu process? does that mean they cannot use the building for student housing any longer? >> if it was a residential use and not in hotel -- that is a separate issue, but if it was the residential use, it would be a case for enforcement to follow up on. >> a number of people have mentioned boston. are you familiar with the program in that city that has supposedly built 10,000 student housing units? >> as a familiar only on