commissioner sugaya. >> commission -- commissioner sugaya: under the introductory language, it says that we'll be changing it from neighborhood commercial etc., and it goes on to say, for p., public, and o.s., open space, for the new north beach public library. is it customary to mention a specific use? or would it be better to have it say, change to p. and o.s. for public use. rather than mentioning the library specifically? >> john mallman from the city attorney's office, that's actually just a finding for the support in the change in legislation so the actual zoning map doesn't say we're doing that, that this is done for the north beach library and in fact, the finding is clear it would be for a new public library or other public use. so it's sort of an expansive observation of what kinds of uses zoning can support on this site. >> following that argument, then, can we reword the resolution on -- if i can figure out what section we're in. vacation. it says for purpose of the north beach public library

commissioner sugaya. that motion passed 6-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. >> i'll restate the motion. i move to approve the general plan findings and map amendments. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'd like to change the wording slightly in that interpretive display to have it located within the new library. >> i'm fine with that. >> we would prefer the flexibility of the interpret i display either inside or somewhere near the vicinity, so for that reason, that would be opposition to basically not be sort of constrained to one location. >> it's my understanding that it's in the mitigation of the seqa of the -- that we just approved. it's the same wording in both but it was in the seqa findings we just approved. >> then it has to be in the library? >> let's leave it that the library acknowledged the possibility of having it in the new library will be considered along with somewhere at or near. thank you. >> commissioners, a motion for -- are we taking these together or separate? >> separat

commissioner sugaya: yeah. i mean, we have construction and then they could be showing mock-ups of the unit before the final trigger, which i assume could be the final occupancy permit. >> yes, there would be a certificate of occupancy, that would establish the legality. >> everything after that would trigger the merger, if they decided to change after that. commissioner sugaya: and then to follow up on commissioner antonini, since there are a lot of union people here who want to have jobs, perhaps the project sponsor could tell us when they expect to start construction. >> we're in for months of architectural documents. i think pushing the end of this year is a possibility, but it's going to be a herculean task. i think it's probably going to be in the first quarter of the next year. commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. >> on the merger issue, we could probably draft a condition that would push the occupancy back. because the way i was looking at it, you don't have to necessarily give up a unit if you have them

president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner to follow up on the comment, since we're on the design i'd like to commend the architect and the response to the surrounding neighborhood, the voluntary setbacks introduced and contributing to the rear yard. the feeling of open space is really great and i like the project overall. so we're back to parking. ã9qj? ahd the project sponsors' attorney has put in the packet that we received, or the folder that we received, an article about parking and has specifically highlighted a sentence here. this is in an article called anti-congestion parking technologies. and it says according to the u.p.a., circling for parking accounts for 30% -- about 30% of driving in san francisco which is one of the most contested -- congested cities in the u.s. the article tries to address the issue by saying there are new technologies coming along to try to reduce the 30% level, which kind of to me goes against allowing for one to one parking. and so that, i think along with what commissioner bor

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. tha

president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, i think as commissioner moore said, we are all trapped here because of the way the supervisors vote on setting up the medical cannabis program. and because of the way the rules work, there aren't very many places as everybody probably knows by now that you can set up a dispensary. and it all kind of comes down to southwest market and certain other areas that are not close to all the facilities that the dispensary is not supposed to be close to. that said, the way the code is worded it says 1,000 feet from the public or private kwool and recreation buildings as defined in the code. i think when we acted on terriville street, we were informed that there were other private serving facilities that sort of met the same definition, but i think the decision was these were not by definition in the planning code applicable. and i don't know that the fail ills that commissioner moore has listed but we could be in the same situation where if it is appealed, i am not say

commissioner sugaya: not to hold up the project, but i thought just popped into my head. since we are considering tax incentives for certain companies -- well, not certain companies, but a company, to be expanded into a larger area, including the tenderloin, maybe you guys could add a couple of floors on this and rent it out to future high-tech companies looking to relocate into the mid market area in the tenderloin. it would help your bottom line and it, and sure. commissioner olague: commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval, and that will be for the adoption of ceqa findings and the conditional use approval with conditions. 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

commissioner sugaya: yeah. i mean, we have construction and then they could be showing mock-ups of the unit before the final trigger, which i assume could be the final occupancy permit. >> yes, there would be a certificate of occupancy, that would establish the legality. >> everything after that would trigger the merger, if they decided to change after that. commissioner sugaya: and then to follow up on commissioner antonini, since there are a lot of union people here who want to have jobs, perhaps the project sponsor could tell us whenhe

. >> 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 the particular study i'm not questioning says what it does say and we actually have this condition that resulted in the interpretation of an error. so i think from that standpoint that we probably should have had something before us and in fact we do not have the memo itself in our packets anyway, to be able to say that this is an error and whatnot, i don't have anything to base my decision on. so i can't vote for the motion.

president cheng:commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: several things i have concerns about, first, on ceqa findings, i don't believe, given my position on the previous item that i can find that we can make the findings that are required by this particular motion. i'm particularly concerned with the number of significant unavoidable impacts as well as significant unavoidable cumulative impacts and can't see how the commission can override thoses particular unavoidable impacts as presented in this document. so that's number one. number two, on the treasure island yerba buena area plan, it's really interesting to me that staff was able to put together an area plan within the space of about three weeks, i think. we had a redevelopment plan previously which i have here which i was reading until the change came along and then all of a sudden we have an area plan for us to consider. i think it's rather unprecedented that the commission and staff has never given us a real presentation and the commission has not had informati

commissioner sugaya: [inaudible] get this thing to work. i have a quick question -- what are the hours of operation? >> the hours that an attendant is there are monday through saturday, no attendance sunday, but you can self-part by putting money in the machines. the hours that an attendant is there is monday through friday, 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. the attendant is there from saturday at -- i believe is 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. because of the entertainment spaces, but i understand all hours of the day all days a week, you can self park. let me confirm that with the client. that is correct. commissioner antonini: from the pictures and from going by there, a nice neat, clean parking lot with lighting and foliage and a lot of things we have spoken about with interim uses. so i would move to approve. commissioner olague: commissioners, the motions -- that the commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. [roll call] thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, you are now on item 15, and this is what the

on that motion -- >> [reading roll] >> moore and sugaya voted against. that motion passed. >> we need that motion from the recreation and park commission. >> we should raise this for gene frey recreation center for the theoretical square hours of sunlight. >> before we call the roll, the last time that we were here, there were some comments that people did not hear very much from us. this has been heard twice from the parks and recreation commission. it would be tempting to get into some of the planning issues, the primary responsibility is to provide quality to recreation and parks. these matters were not raised before us at this hearing. the primary purpose that we have here is to enhance the parks and recreation experience. please call the roll. >> commissioner harrison? commissioner martin? >> aye. >> comissioner -- >> aye. >> those motinons passed unanimously by the parks commission, 5-2. item number three on the parks commission. it is the recreation center, south of market park. this is the discussion in the possible action to recommend to the pla

. >> commission 234er sugaya? >> commissioner sugaya:. thank you, staff. i guess i am leaning toward circulation. we are switching from a redevelopment model toward what is called construction financing districts. my belief is that we have no idea at this point how these districts are going to function, how much money they are going to generate, and although the eir says that adopting the redevelopment plan does not affect environmental impact of the proposed project, but rather affects funding mechanisms to be used to implement the proposed project -- it is kind of a circular argument. the way you find it results in the kinds of physical things that the eir is supposed to address. it is not only the loss of housing. it could lead to other things which have not been studied. i do not know whether it is the appropriate way to address something like the issue of keeping the number of affordable housing units and paying for that, and taking the money from somewhere else like open space. my belief is that if you take it from open space, you have to recirculate

on the motion for recusal of commissioner sugaya -- [roll call] >> commissioner sugaya is recused. >> i am here to remind the planning commission how lopsided this whole process has been. a developer wanted a nine-unit condominium project built on 701 lombard street. it was approved. the neighborhood spearheaded by supervisor peskin wanted an open space park without any building, and the supervisors voted to use the power of eminent domain. now a new developer wants to build a library on the same space which is intended for open space. with a footprint that is larger than the original developers planned. this footprint is so large it needs to extend to mason street in order to function. this new building also looks like a box store if you'll show the overhead. it looks like a box store, which by the way are not allowed in north beach. throughout this process, i keep wondering why "the chronicle" voices oppositions for landmarking in any of the city's buildings. now i know, if i were the chronicle in a herself corporation, i would have been against landmarking as well. they stand to lo

president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes. this is not a comment about cvs but, you know, this is a really bad building. i mean, it really is a bad building. and it looks like some outlet mall got dropped on us from suburban america somewhere. on that note, i would like to have cvs consider working with staff and see what you could do with something in terms of maybe paint. i don't think we can -- we're not interested in redoing the building so to speak but if you could explore something with your architect. i know we have a signage plan in front of us but something that goes beyond hanging signs on the outside of the building to give it a little bit more architectural something. i don't know what that would be. i'm not a designer. but i would encourage you to do that, not making it a condition, but -- president olague: i just wanted to suggest that we have a conversation at some point with staff that's calendared to discuss this type of use, because we're seeing a lot of these questions become more complicated around these re

. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> commissioner olague? >> no. >> the motion fails on a 3-4 feet have commissioner moore, borden, sugaya and olague voting against. now, commissioners, you can do something else. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i'd like to suggest since we've clarified the issue of parking we take the ceqa findings with the corrected wording regarding the lower parking and approval of the project as one motion which i'm making based on staff recommendation. but before i make the motion, i'd like to make an additional comment. i'm personally very disturbed that the issue of parking is starting to involve the discussion of income, creed, and color. and i'm very disturbed about that because -- that the project is a better project deserving higher parking is something i personally do not want to participate in that discussion. it is very upsetting to me, and i think it's inappropriate for this commission to let a policy discussion about the importance of cars in this community detour into talking about

roll call, commissioner moore, commissioner sugaya, commissioner fong, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden. thank you. following public comment in any modifications or corrections you may have come on these minutes are before you for your consideration. >> commissioner sugaya. >> we will take the minutes. >> yes. >> will you comment on the minutes? >> i was. >> there was an initial motion to take dr and denied the project. on that vote then, because of the failure and there was no substitute motion, the subject was automatically approved. the minutes say that there was an action in which the commission unanimously voted to approve the project. >> that is probably an error. >> that should not be in there. >> this is action a key on item 10. >> i will correct that action. >> we received a memorandum from the health commission that took the meeting's minutes during our joint meeting. are those supplemental to the meeting minutes? >> no, those are their. >> i would like to open it up for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i move to approve the minutes

in keeping with what commissioner sugaya suggested, keeping up with what has been cut and other cities, dense cities where there are so -- or there is still a lot of traffic. it can be somewhat analogous to our situation. >> if we can move forward to the director's report and announcements. >> good afternoon, the commissioners. on the last topic, we will be happy to coordinate with mta as well. it is managing the on-street spaces. it allows them to do variable pricing. the goal is to keep the with the parking space. that will come into play very soon. we received an announcement about regarding the open space element. we have had to postpone that meeting. just in terms of the project status, we have not said the new date for it yet. but we will let you know about that. there is an upcoming meeting that i wanted to tell you about. the broadway design plan, this is for a streetscapes designed for the broadway tunnel. we are working with the community development center on this. the first workshop will be wednesday, may 4 from 4:30 to 6:30. i just realized i don't have the location in my

commissioner sugaya: you mentioned sri. are we using that technology? >> the enterprise license agreement to place about a month ago that allows us to configure that. >> i wanted to thank brian and the gis analyst that has done the work done this. i think it will allow the public to get a lot of information much more quickly. it really helps that. i want to thank staff for putting this together. president olague: public comment? public comment is closed. >> we can now start the 1:30 calendar. proposed for a continuance to april 21, 2011. item 8, the fairmount hotel. to june 23, 2011. further on your calendar, item number nine, a repeal of preliminary negative declaration, please note that the appeal has been withdrawn and this item is no longer before you. with that, i am not aware of any other item proposed for a continuance. president olague: public comment on items proposed for a continuance? commissioner miguel: i move the items for a continuance on the calendar to the dates specified. >> on the motion as the have been proposed -- [roll call vote] t

commissioner sugaya: how much continued oversight is there with respect to the trust? >> it is similar to the port's role. they would need to make sure that the property was used and there will be certain reporting requirements to the state commission. it is also contemplated that there will be an exchange agreement that was negotiated with the commission said there will be further involvement with state land and executing those exchanges. >> we can look favorably on the lt. gov.'s support. >> correct me if i'm wrong, redevelopment agencies had to show certain criteria to be able to be established or funded. one was the presence of light. the other was the provision of affordable housing, and the third was certain infrastructures to an area that did not have infrastructure before. there may be others. the question is, they do not have a requirement >> they do not require that you make the bike findings. funds generated in the district can be used for infrastructure improvements outside of the district. >> they would need the consent of those residents in a particular d

commissioner sugaya: would it require property owner approval? >> correct. commissioner sugaya: you would drive boundary and asked if they want or don't want it? in terms of the encouragement that is generated, is if it generated after a base is established just like under a tax increment? that they still generates income for the general fund? ok. >> there are private property owners that voted to initiate. we are the property owners. commissioner fong: i think this model might become pretty popular statewide. a little bit on your first recommendation, if you did not produce affordable housing, you touched on how to catch back up to certain points. can you go a little bit further about how that might work? if you get to phase one, what are the triggers? or would it happen in phase one, but not phase 2? >> there were 24 lots designated for affordable housing. under the 25% scenario, there are 20 in total designated for affordable housing. we would try to structure so that there is one law perfect. we have a request to try to push that out further. it gives us

president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: oh, i thought the director was -- i make a motion -- do i make a motion? ok. i'm just going to say then if there's no motion necessary that my recollection along with commissioner miguel is what is shown in yellow on the plans. that staff has given us. which means the notch goes all the way back to where the other building comes to the property line. >> if that's the way to describe it. >> commissioners, if i may, usually after a hearing, i go back to the office and i do a summary of the actions that you take. on that particular hearing or after that particular hearing, my summary of what took place at the hearing was that the commission took -- approved the project with a modification of a three-foot notch on the west side of ground floor deck and a more picket fence like look where possible around all the decks. and i didn't say that it was a three-foot notch for five feet. but it was on the west side. so my understanding of the motion, it was made by commission

commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye. >> at the motion passes unanimously. >> is there any general public comment on items not on today's calendar? seeing none -- i was not sure if you were standing up or not. >> commissioners -- >> your name? >> gerardo. i just want to encourage you to have a hearing about water supply. we have these show me the water laws that will be kicking in in a few years. according to our calculations, water supply is sufficient to cover the unit's you referred to before that were in the pipeline. beyond that, no. the assistant general manager who is writing the mandated update of the urban water management plan stated on tuesday, i will read you the quote again. they have a projected shortfall of the available water supply to meet its level of service goals and its contractual obligations. a very serious statement. the issue of availability always gets punted by the planning department's staff based on a few reports. you have to look at the latest report to see who -- to se