president miguel: commissioner olague?vice president olague: i would ask the city attorney to review the transcripts of that hearing and to determine what the intention of the motion was, really. we seem to have some debate even from one of the persons who voted for the motion. i just think as soon as possible we need to have a public hearing that we have been planning for over a year about ceqa and the department's approach to it, and i guess we also have to include now what authority the commission has or does not have as relates to this issue, since we were challenged so clearly by the project sponsor's attorney, i felt, last hearing. >> i think for whatever reason -- president miguel: we were told -- vice president olague: we were told -- president miguel: i am not interested in a challenge from a member of the public. with the city attorney comment? >> it is really the secretary of the commission who is charged with reviewing the minutes and the tape to determine what action the commission took. here is my understandi

commissioner olague: indefinite. >> ok. the motion on the floor then for the planning commission only is an indefinite continuance on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. president miguel: ok. the hearing is still continuing. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: the direction of the planning commission's discussion and concerns i feel are more appropriately directed toward the historic preservation. because that's where we would be talking about issues such as historic preservation policies, historic preservation goals and objectives, and the way historic preservation in this city can be looked at by, you know, both the planning commission, i suppose, and the historic preservation commission. ultimately the board of supervisors. i think additional discussion on tweaking the ordinance will go nowhere. and would just result in delays that i think -- you know, will not be productive. that's why i voted against the continuance. i think if the commission really feels -- an

president miguel: commissioner olague? vice president olague: i guess, you know, one of the questions i had was related to the second paragraph on page 2. so, you kn ow, a member of the public raised this, and then commissioners a guy asked that this be pursued. -- and then commissioner sugaya asked that this be pursued. basically what i am saying is this is outside of the scope of ceqa and should be out of the question. >> i was trying to acknowledge that what any information requests pure and simple may be outside of ceqa, the clarification could well be interpreted within the whelm -- within the realm of questioning. and after the hearing, that was further amplified. it was not just information for the sake of information, but they were information requests that had a bearing on the conclusions on the impact and also may have affected their willingness to consider certification. i was basically trying to say that depending on how it was articulated, it might be information that would be best dealt with through the entit

vice-president olague: i have my name up. we should amend it. >> this is a good incentive to not letting them convert any more or even the ones they have so that it pushes them to build dorms and to give up this idea that they can just buy up the city. commissioner sugaya: i'm afraid and i'm not a housing expert or housing developer, but has consideration been given to bonuses and that kind of thing where there would be real insebttives for housing of this type to be -- incentives for housing of this type to be built. >> he suggests relying on the density limitations that exist in the zoning district and you wouldn't get something out of scale. what we have in areas we are encouraging housing and removed the density limits. so that would be further to encourage this new development in the areas that we have rezoned. commissioner sugaya: you might want to think about extending that concept where we have said the building envelope is such and such and would meet the current zoning standards so to speak, but then allow in the ot

olague. vice-president olague: i want to include the right to private action, the comments said before. i know he couldn't look into it and he can explain it. is that right? did i get that right -- in the event that we can't monitor. yeah. ok. and then, i think in the spirit of smart growth, which is something of encouraging -- that's why i was -- you know asked the staff to, you know, to encourage near transit corridors, but along those lines, to explore the relaxation of parking requirmentse is critical and many students don't own cars, they ride their bike. we should look atlanta making sure there are student bike spaces and car share -- i don't know -- but maybe to look at these alternatives to owning cars -- president miguel: commissioner? >> i want to make it clear my opposition is because it does too much. this should be bifurcated. what the measure should do is, it should encourage the new construction and exempt that from affordable housing with recapture if it becomes converted away

vice president olague: i guess i am a little bit -- i think this calls into question the role of the commission as it relates to the certification of an eir or not. it was clear to me that we did not approve it, that we did not certify the eir. i think what is happening now, basically the staff is refuting the decision of the commission. i don't feel comfortable with that. i don't know of any time in the past six years i have been here that we have denied an eir that there has been a motion to continue. i was under the impression -- i did not support the motion to continue. i was under the impression, like commissioner sugaya, it was to bring back certain issues the public made. i did not think we would be continuing it to reconsider whether we would be certified this environmental impact report. at some point, i would like the city attorney to sit with us, to sit with me, to clarify the role of the commission as it relates to our role in certify or not an eir. i was very comfortable with the comments of co

commissioner olague? vice president olague: move to approve. commissioner antonini: second.resident miguel: certify. vice president olague: or certify, yeah. secretary avery: commissioners, on the motion to certify the final eir -- [roll call vote] secretary avery: thank you. the final and formal document has been certified. commissioners, before you now is item five, case 200 7.0519c, 1645 pacific ave. this is a request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. my name is kevin, with planning staff. the request before you is for conditional use authorization for a project that would demolish an existing all repair and parking building and a portion of another all repair building -- automobile repair and construct a new building containing 32 -- two dozen square feet. conditional use authorization is required to develop a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in size and bulk exceptions. bill have dwelling units and a mixture of sizes and retail spaces. the building complement's the eclectic scale and architectural character of the area, utilizing various treatment

vice president olague: great. it is just by the very nature of the zoning prohibited. so there is all of this other -- >> right. all the underlying controls of zoning districts will apply. student housing can only go into areas where housing is allowed, or the conversion of housing in those districts. like the director said, eastern neighborhood does not allow conversions. vice president olague: then where would this be done? i mean, where would it be done? there is such limited -- are there any sites that have been identified? i just want to know. how would this happen? >> i have thought about that as well, and i would defer to the institutions themselves. it primarily would be allowed in the core of the city. c districts, rc districts, probably the nc districts. anywhere housing is allowed. there are some r district, but there are some limitations. it would probably be primarily in the c districts. vice president olague: i know mo has probably been doing some work. how do they feel about it? >> i have reviewed a

vice president olague: it is automatic. commissioner antonini: as far as the conditions that were added, there was one other one in regards to the garbage deliveries. i do not know if the city attorney had any comments on that. it is not part of the conditions as they are now. perhaps i could have the neighbors' attorney at what that was. it came pretty fast. i think he said all deliveries through the front door and garbage pickups at certain times of the day. >> the bottle shall be removed out the front door only and the deliveries shall be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and other than those hours to the front door. so deliveries are only through the rear 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and beyond that through the front door. we were told by the planning department that that is not the type of thing that could be in these conditions. the purpose of the stipulation on the record was just to have a public record of this promise. commissioner antonini: very good. so that is not a condition. project sponsor, can i ask if that is acceptable

if not, public comment is closed, commissioner olague. vice president olague: this is complicated because south of market, i mean, as anjelica and april and staff knows, they have been under so much pressure from development that there is a certain kind of urgency or nervousness around displacement of existing communities in that area. so i can understand where this is coming from. one time before when we were looking at it, we thought, well, maybe by i think when 900 follow some came up, there was a discussion, that's when sort of like when you pass these ordinances or you find out that there is limitations to its strength or whatever, there is no teeth and so then you try to find ways to make it more stronger so that you can sort of reach certain goals of creating more affordable housing and stuff. i'm not sure that -- i can see where the staff is coming from. you want to make sure that it's a feasible ordinance that it's something that can actually deliver to the community what the community is demanding. so that's my concern is that -

commissioner olague. vice president olague i support staff's report, as you mentioned here, we endorsed it in 2008. so all these processes as they relate to the market and octavia plan do take some time. i would support mandatory d.r. being required as it relates to 376 castro. some of the other pipeline projects. i think it's -- mandatory d.r.'s aren't really mandating anything other than encouraging further conversation between neighbors and developer to make sure that it does really in some ways relate to the market and octavia plan. it seems to have been successful conversations in the past between developer and neighbors and i think what i'm hearing from neighbors is that they would be fine even with in kind, not really mandating anything, just saying mandatory d.r. there are several times when projects are designed and completed and they come to the commission and there's amendments, sometimes you get to the board, there's amendments. it's not uncommon to amend a prompt. you know, even after it's fu

. >> commissioner olague? vice president olague: the neighborhood didn't get to where they were at because they were not vigilant. there's a history of neighbors meeting with the neighbors and it was a lot of work and whatever. that's why i think there is still this hypervigilance when it comes to this, want to make sure they conform to what the neighborhood vision is for the area. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i hope that the developer and architect can rise to this occasion. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to approve the amendment for staff recommendation and instead of requiring mandatory d.r., encouragement of the project sponsor to work with community. that would include a public hearing and information -- an informational public hearing on the project. i won't go into all the recommendations of staff, they have been stated by staff and you. on that motion, commissioner commissioner antonini:. >> aye. >> migser moore. commissioner sugaya. the motion passes. >> if we can take out

commissioner olague. vice president olague: i just wanted to thank commissioner sugaya that came up with language that was acceptable to all of us. that was hard. that was not easy. i think i support the work of supervisor daly has been working hard to make sure that we preserve some -- it's not just about the youth and families, it's about preserving it for low-income families and working families who want to remain in south market and always have a place there. it's been real challenging. i know trinity plaza, there have been some real victories. so i think with the help of -- you know, that howard and sixth street building is going to become family housing now thanks to the work of the community again. i think there is ways of working through this so that it's about more than just preserving youth and families, it's about actually preserving people who are working families who have a history of living in that community and have been maybe pushed out due to certain pressures there. so i think it's doabl

commissioner olague. vice president olague: i would like to make a motion, i don't know how we do this, separately or -- >> we can take them all together. vice president olague: so i move item 20 a, 20 b, and 20 c. >> second. >> on that motion for items 20 a, b, and c, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. >> commissioner aboard. commissioner borden: aye. >> commissioner sugaya, commission olague, commissioner miguel. aye. >> those are adopted and approved. commissioners, that's the end of our regular calendar. we do have public comment. i do not have any speaker cards, but at this time any member of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction matter of the commission except commission tells. >> my name is daniel. we're planning students at u.c. berkeley and we're just observing the meeting. president miguel: welcome. >> i'm graduating in may. if you have any job opportunities, please let me know. [laughter] >> thank

commissioner olague: ok. great. commissioner moore: i was going to charge in there for the sake of the discussion, this is not an attack on the project, but just clearing the discussion. car-centric is what applies to many neighborhoods in san francisco. the city is not developed around high-rise living in the center. what we see here is a community which starts to emulate a person having a large amount of open space being able to reach nearby cities. i don't want to use the negative words about it. who might say that today, but it doesn't really mean anything. i am looking at the investment into a rather extreme part -- a majority of tall buildings sits far away and you can diagram it without yourself here. while everything is in walking distance, it is for people that are used to cars and much more difficult to define. it takes a lot to retrofit suburbia. it takes a helluva lot. we see that in parts of the outlying suburbs, and urbanization is a difficult thing to come by. i am perhaps in support of commissioner a

commissioner olague: what was that now? >> there would be approximately two during the week when we would not provide valet parking and two over the weekend when we would prefer not to. commissioner olague: i think that is right, actually. the people familiar with that area, i believe there is more parking on the weekends and in the evenings. commissioner moore: i believe that the department has made a convincing case of why we should go with the recommendation. i do not believe that it could be managed by providing more parking spaces. i am strongly in favor of the motion as it is proposed. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval as proposed by staff on that motion. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. commissioner olague: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. >> that motion passes on a 4-2 vote. you are now starting your regular calendar with item 11, case number 2010.0514c -- commissioner miguel: excuse me, remember we were going to take supervi

vice president olague: thank you. president miguel: i am personally very pleased this is coming along. it has been talked about for too many years. it is a much more mixed area than people look at at first, even if they bother to look at it when driving through. it contains one of the oldest restaurants in san francisco. it contains a florist, a wholesaler. and if you take a look at the area east of bayshore, it was pdr before that term was ever invented. if you were going to invent that term, which san francisco did, it was just taking a look at that area. that is exactly what it is. and so i think this is totally inappropriate. -- totally appropriate. >> the motion before you is for approval per staff's recommendation, offered today, dated november 17. on that motion? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: sye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that is for both a and b. thank you. we are now going back to item 16, case number 2,010.0863

vice president olague: move to approve. >> second. clerk: commissioners -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you commissioners. that item has been approved. commissioners are there any commission matters? >> rather than comment earlier, i thought i would save it for here, as to the possibility of an offsite in december regarding park mer said, there was comment from commissioners here that was affirmative in that regard. i've spoken with a number of people from that area in organizations, as well as with the mayor's office of economic, and work force development. i am sure we will hear from later this afternoon as well on park mer said. and the concept is that doing such a truthfully massive and extremely involved project on which we are going to -- and we will hear more in detail later this afternoon, a number of informational hearings, was the thought that those particular matters regarding the project that are of most interest to the residents, the tenants, and the general neighborhood, would best be heard there. and so i have, actually,