>> right now the written material submitted lantern noon and 8 days before will not be submit until the board votes. >> that would be our preference and so. >> your changing that to one member of the board. >> if it takes one member of the board to allow later information to be submitted i think it would be essentially be the same situation we have now. it's hard because we're talking about two things the planning departments ability to respond and a other than the planning department >> okay. thank you for that clarification. other than the planning department it would be more desirable for the board - this is purely from the standpoint of the planning department having the opportunity to respond to the information. the late submital of the information would be problematic >> so within 8 days or less of the hearing. >> yes. >> if the planning department doesn't respond to an issue that's been raised than that can have implications on others information. >> would you like to commit? do you know >> yes. i believe the issue is the document dumping provision. >> yeah, the 8 days and ma

submit their request to sfpd, but i'm suggesting perhaps you consider that the "may submit request" for the sfpd to put aside whether or not to approve. >> okay. >>> can you remove the steering committee from that [speaker not understood]. >> sir, i'm sorry, you're speaking out of turn. i'm happy to hear you if you could stand up and speak into the microphone. i think your input is appropriate right at this moment. >>> i'm concerned with the specific language in point number 1 having to do with curfews, recognizing some kind of official standing of the neighborhood steering committee which does not have any such standing. >> okay. >>> i would request that you change the wording so it says to work with the neighborhood regarding requests for curfew extensions. and i would think that live nation would try to do that if they did that, but i think that putting in a specific committee like that is not consistent with the -- >> got it, thank you. thank you. >> would you be willing to take another public comment on -- >> 30 seconds. >>> it goes to the issue that dealt with the ten-year request

that's fine. >>> i can submit this? >> sure. >> [speaker not understood]. >> yeah, have you given it to -- >> and to d-b-i. >> are you indicating that you are in agreement now with the permit if these conditions are added? is that what you're saying? >>> yes, we would be. >> have you raised them with the permit holder? >>> shall i start now? >> have you brought this to the attention -- is this the first time they're seeing this? >>> yes. >> why is that? >>> because we weren't able to get to any agreement before now. >> so, you put this together after your -- >>> we put it together since we've seen their information. >> how much time has passed? >>> we got it on the second of may. >>> what happened is that the conditions are based on the findings of the acoustical report that was included in their brief. it was a comprehensive acoustical report. we are asking to repeal before we submitted our brief. we never got it until the day after we submitted our brief. >> okay. ~ i'm just asking her about the process because if the

s >> it is in the materials that were submitted to the board. there are two sets. >> is this the first one? >> but what exist? >> it should say at the bottom, the view from the composite sidewalk. 6. >> and let's call a spade a spade. they are worried about the view, from their turret to the city, nobody is worried about seeing that from the street. the last time that i checked the views were not protected >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department, just a background on the subject property, it is west avenue and located in the rh three and it is a three unit residential zoning district and the subject by itself is a little bit smaller than you typically see and it is narrower by 25 by 96 feet deep and the subject building permit application was submitted in may of 2011. and environmental review was filed and the neighborhood notice was conducted a year ago and the discretionary review was filed and the planning commission has a dr hearing on this and the issues related to the third floor addition and disp

evidence submitted within, i believe that it is however many days before the hearing. or at the hearing itself. and under the, about how the board can approve acceptance of that late evidence. as a disinctive for pe at the l huge amounts of evidence, that could have been submitted earlier and what i have proposed was to require the majority vote of the board, we discussed that and we have deferred it to this week. i now have a revised version that reads as follows. the clerk will distribute any written documents submitted by these deadlines to the board, through the board's normal distribution procedures and such written materials will be part of the record and the written materials submitted later than noon, eight days prior to the schedule hearing are applying the department responses to the appeal will not be considered part of the record unless five members agree at the hearing or before, subject to the board rules of procedure to include such written materials in the record. i just wanted to pose this and this will be at lot, or page 33 line, 22, to 23 of the legi

the rest i submit. >> supervisor kim, supervisormar? >> i would like to invite my colleagues to the balboa theatre what some might feel brings back a lot of memories. some are saturday movies. there is popcorn palace that began last weekend and continues this weekend with a showing of assortment of kids movies. you get popcorn and a bottle of water or juice for a really good admission price. it's made possible by the independent film makers of the northwest film festival. also beginning june 1, saturday morning are filled with children's classics. i would like to invite a number of you to attend these events. some of you know that friday nights in district one at the museum is a great opportunity for family and art making for kids, but there is -- every friday is an amazing time for art, music, creativity and for families. a performance of dances. her name is l e n o.r. a lee. it's called escaped. it's two performances this coming friday. i encourage everybody to come out. it's all free and amazing food and art together. the rest i will

it would give the planning department an opportunity to respond to that information submit 8 days aheado there are not points remaining on the record that haven't been respond to. >> our legislation also gives the planning department a deadline to the supervisors as well unless a member of the board fosters the decisions. >> i believe that your legislation allows the board to make the decision as to whether information is submitted more than 8 or less than 8 days ahead can be admitted in the record. >> by the planning department? if i'm correct it doesn't make a distinction and the aspect of it from providing the opportunity for the planning department to respond to the points that were made in the information submitted a week before the hearing was suggested by the our department. >> right so. i understand where this is coming from i think we had intended it for both the planning department and members of the public although we allow it to be submitted but this makes it the requirement to the members of the public >> yes our certain is essentially this is protective of the board of sup

the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor breed. seeing no other /tphapls on the roster. >> i think supervisor campos. >> i'd like to begin by talking about something that supervisor wiener has already referenced and it's something we've been working on for quite some time. we have heard the last year-and-a-half perhaps a number of comments about whether or not there should be changes to the mission alcohol special use district. the conversation that we began in my office, along with supervisor wiener in his office and along with supervisor jane kim when she represented the north mission. the point that we are authoring -- and i want to thank supervisor wiener for his cosponsorship is to make targeted changes to alcohol controls in the mission district in the way that strikes the right balance in looking at the varis needs within the neighborhood, including the places like the [inaudible] district on valencia street. as supervisor wiener indicated, this is a way of making sure there is some protection and balance with respect to the

rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor breed and mr. president, seeing no names on the roster, that concludes roll call for introduction. >> thank you, madame clerk why don't we go to general public comment. >> at this time the public may comment up to 2 minutes in the subject-matter jurisdiction of the board, including those items -- please note public comment will not be allowed on items that have already been subject to public comment by a board committee and pursuant to rule 4.22, please district your remarks to the board as a whole and not to individual supervisors or the audience. people using assistive technology, you will have double the time and if you would like the screen for document coverage, please inform sfgovtv. thank you. first speaker. >> it's not easy to be a homeless advocate and community activist for 28-29 years. i am here to thank our supervisor london, who has recognized our lovely lady, who was here. i would like to tell you something else to you, when they buy the t-shirts from me and give it to the people that

and the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you madam clerk. last thursday was back to work day and a know a number of /uls participated. it was a celebration of mayor mode of transportation in san francisco. i enjoyed in richmond. i think making bike lanes safer families has been great for richmond. in february i asked the mayor how he tends to [inaudible] to do so. we know that many of /uls ride and we know the benefits of bicycling and improving the bicycling network in san francisco leads to healthier commuters we can make in moving people in our city is in bicycle infrastructure. never theless the city is spending just less than one-half of one percent of cap -- 20 percent of all trips by bicycle by 2020. today we're think a little over 7 percent so we have a long way to go. i want to identify [inaudible] out of the bike plan. it's time the city walks the walk when it comes to funding bike improvements. less than half of one percent is not acceptable and is when w these plans a reality. i look forward to working with you in bringing these

in the room 408 if you wish to submit our public comment please make your way to this room >> so since we're doing a little show of hands how many have seen the movie honey, i slung the kids. this project the building has honey it's been shrunk to accumulate the concerns. now let me ask you because i was here when all of you decided on the trans bay project. there was numerous believes that got granted approval foreshadow on union square. i didn't see one of these persons in this room today from the four seasons protesting that day the stood allocation this was made on union square. i didn't see former supervisors get up here and testify against none of those projects. and i didn't hear l about him threatening lawsuits from the bay projects. so why is it we have to focus today those folks from the four seasons come in here and protest those projects. if he were so concerned about shadowing on union square they would have all been here protesting with their lawyers protesting. i represent the friends of mexican museum and these are r a few of the folks come today. so we don't repeat our

if they fail to submit within the ten days they can file a rehearing request. >> okay. i think it works either way. i don't -- >> i believe i have a motion on the floor. >> yeah, he has a motion. just wanted some discussion. >> understood. >> call the roll? >> we have a motion from commissioner fong to continue this matter to june 19th. that's to allow time for the appellant to file for a conditional use authorization. on that motion to continue, 3 votes are needed. president wong, no, ton, yes, lapis zarus. the matter is continued to june 19th. >> meeting is adjourned. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>

is cast ta indian eat ri, that's a food truck operating nearby but it's serving indian food and we submit that is an area that can easily support another food cart. this is the area right near 560 mission street, the j.p. morgan chase building is there, this is the headquarters, ernst and young is there, dla piper, one of the largest law firms that i'm aware of is there and golden gate university is right next door, this is with 700 law students, that's all in exhibit a of our brief, so it's an area that has a lot of people in the afternoon looking for some lunch, quick lunch, and it's an area that can easily support one more restaurant. now, sorry, not one more restaurant but one food vending establishment, a small food cart. there have been some objections, we acknowledge there's been some objections to ms. pham's request, but we don't think they should carry any weight, there's been objections along the line, people said mixed greens serves vietnamese food, not correct, casa indian eat ri is around, not correct. ms. pham's permit if granted would impose some negative problems on people

submitted in good faith in january, 2007. i urge you as you think about budgets to put a completion of undergrounding public utilities on your high priority list. you are the stewards of the city. the city deserves no less. thank you for your attention. >> president chiu: thanks. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is oscar james. i am a resident of -- point. i served on many committees. my concern is election of the new committee. i have problems with what i have gotten on my computer saying that the city will select 12 members to represent -- the residents of our community. i served in my committee since 1968, first and the eeoc board, joint housing. we were all elected by third of residents. i asked that this be rescinded and that the residents have preference and selecting who they want to serve on cac. i also surf the mayor's task force. we have never allowed anyone to come up in our community and dictate to us, when robert kennedy came to our community 1968 , to find out what we wanted in housing he ask

submitted later on noon the material will not be added as part of the record. and i also understand from the city attorney there needs to be a technical correction to the title and ms. warren you want to commit on that. >> yes. the title has a phrase in that that should ever come out and that phrase is providing for the board to make the final sequa decision requiring action regarding sequa appeals. >> thank you so after public comment i'll be asking the count i committee to adopt the amendment and i'll all the one by ms. warren. >> thank you, mr. chewy want to take a moment and thank our deputy city attorney and as well as all the public stakeholders after the amendments we offered two years ago, i brought more amendments to continue to insure that when the planning depended are making decisions those are properly noticed to the public. so i brought some additional amendments to run through. those are fairly technical but for the record i have an amendment that will be adopted to modify section 34 i that helps to modify the sequa decision and this will be prov

is it your point that it can be submitted for approval? >> i'm concerned that it would never come in advance prior to getting approval. i'm not sure how often that happens. 706 is the first. i'm not sure since 2003, if how often this has happened. it's never come up before. i think it seems to be this big part of the law that maybe none of us had a firm understanding of. >> what i can tell you is our co approach is reflected in both of the ordinance that you and supervisor wiener have put forward. >> let's say an exempt project is modified. i know there is an exception to that we need to have a consideration if a project changes . under supervisor wieners's legislation the environmental review office does a process in which she can evaluate modifications of the project in the version that i have circulated for comment from everyone there is an attempt to provide more objective standards for what this modification needs. it would say that modifications requiring reevaluation shall include and there are 6 specifically enumerated categories,

. >> good evening, i am on behalf of myself and my husband, we submitted a letter of support. as local property owners and neighbors, we would like to voice the support of the vet cal addition that they have planned for their home. we have reviewed the plans and visited the site a number of times and contended that the appeal against the addition is unfortunate for san francisco. at peel seems founded on the notion that the greater san francisco xhint could somehow lose where the plans to move forward that is false. we visited the park daily and will attest to the fact that no public view, ocean or horizon or homes will be impacted by this modest addition. this design of 611 ntrite to as equally of the victor ans owned by the appellants. diversity is a good thing and does not detract for the ability to enjoy the neighborhood. it is our impression that we continue the efforts to over turn and defeat the expansion to prevent any development, however sensible, reasonable and tasteful in the city, our wonderful city is not characterized by stagnation or should the architecture be.

. >> they have submitted 29 letters in approval and two out reach meetings and engaged in efforts in which they will scribe in their presentation. and also received a letter of the north of the panhandle neighborhood association that requested the planning commission approve the proposed project with the following conditions, the conditional use is not attached to the property itself, but the brew house and the sponsors of the application, it is reviewed for feedback and comments and complaints related to the extended hours. the planning department staff is recommending that the proposed project be approved with conditions as indicated in the draft motion under exhibit a, that it is permitted hours between 6:00 a.m. and 2 a.m.. and this concludes the presentation and also available to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> project sponsor? >> >> hi, good evening, good evening, planning commissioners, i'm ivan and i am the sponsor of the project of the barrel head brew house which is to be a brew pub a restaurant and brewery located inside of the 1785 fulton street location. it is our

okay, seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i actually have a question for mr. sanchez. the attorney for the permit holder stated that the planning and building did not rely on exhibit a, the 90% from reservation or preservation of the [speaker not understood] foundation. is that a true statement? >> that is correct. we did a separate analysis using the requirements of section 317. one was done prior to the discretionary review hearing and i did the evaluation prior to our last board of appeals hearing. >> just wanted confirmation for the record. thank you. >> commissioners, the information that was provided in the brief was basically a repeat of what we heard. the testimony tonight is basically a repeat of what we heard. i see no new information and i see no manifest injustice being presented. >> i agree with you, commissioner vaughan. i see no manifest unjust either. this was just reiteration of what was said at our last hearing and highlighted. so -- >> i'm going to move to deny the rehearing request. >> okay. mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please.

staff made copies of all materials that had been submitted by the d-r requestor and submitted those to the commission. those go up on our website, the entire planning commission packet goes on our website the friday before the hearing. and the appellant would have had that time to review that if there are things that they warranted to add, they could have added that at the hearing. ~ wanted as stated. there were technical difficulties as we see tonight with the presentation, but those are beyond the control of the department. so, if there are any questions, thank you. >> i have a quick question. before inspector duffy. i'm curious about the proposed alternatives that were presenteded as part of the appellant's suggestions. maybe i should wait until -- did you have more on rebuttal? okay, could you -- that's for you, right? what did you think as possible alternatives to what the permit currently allows? >> in regards to -- >> the shielding, i don't know what you call it, the half glass that would create more barrier -- >> it's not required by the building code. if they wanted to agree t

seeing none, commissioners, i think the matter is submitted. oops, go ahead. >> i'm not sure who whom to address t probably one of our city representatives. this permit was for the work that wanted to be done to prepare it to become a dispensary, am i correct, do they still need additional permits before they can start functioning as such? >> thank you. scott [speaker not understood] planning department. the permit for the jurisdictional request is for a change of use under the planning code. it would allow a change of use. i believe there will be a separate operational permit that would be issued by the department of public health for the mcd. perhaps the permit holder can speak to the status with the department of public health. but in terms of the change of use and what's required under the planning code and building code, that's all embodied in the permit. >> that's not the final step for them to begin operation? >> they also have a permit from the department of public health for the operation of the mcd and maybe they can provide the statu

reviewed those applications and narrowed the finalists down to three finalists, and those artists submitted the proposals. we put them on display for public comment and we also sent them to the union square business improvement district and they could provide comment back to us before we had our second selection panel meeting. through that process the panel selected local artists jennifer starkweather and amanda, the artist team and together they have produced this design, that features -- unfortunately the image is quite blown out. there is very fine line work that references maps and topographic imagery. can you see the line work? so it's very fine line work and it does show up over here on this computer screen. so if it's worth it to you, you are welcome to come down and take a look at it on the screen. and there are parts the map that are marked with red and orange dots that reference commute patterns and they worked with the mta to gather data on how people use public transit in san francisco, and also in the bay area. and so then they located some of the dots. this is not a map and it