. >> commissioner sugaya. >> mr. hillis, did you want to -- >> no, i'm done. >> okay. i just wanted to add to the motion -- not add to the motion, but i think that the commission's feeling is that there really isn't a dwelling unit removal in the sense that there is still going to be a dwelling unit. there is going to be the smaller cottage in the back and there is going to be a brand-new building in the front and in essence i think you can say that there is no removal. we're just moving one component of the cottage to the new building in the front. and, so, i think the technicality of the way the legal language may be written doesn't apply in this case because it's a special situation. and we really aren't removing a dwelling unit per se. so, if the za can get his mind around that, then i think that's the intent of the commission. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask staff perhaps to also work a little with the applicant as you are now figuring out exactly how to package it. instead of putting on these plans that there will be a subsequent permit for the cott

>> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously +6 to -0. >> on the matter of the variance, i close the public hearing, denied the requested variance because we got [speaker not understood]. if anyone would like a copy of the decision order please contact the staff planner. >> commissioners, that places you on your final item, number 17, case no. 2010.0272dd for 1235 40th avenue, two requests for discretionary review. >> president fong, members of the commission, michael smith, planning department staff. i have before you two requests for discretionary review for 1235 40th avenue. the project is proposing to construct a three story accessory residential structure at the front of the lot and demolish the existing detached garage structure in that same location. the structure would be accessory residential use to the existing residential dwelling at the back of the lot. the dr was requested by the a

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. i think commissioner borden started off to stay we have a fairly specific duty in front of us and that is to consider the two issues that the dr is filed on, and not that other things aren't important. i think everybody expressed that fact -- at least the other three speakers before me and i am sure the two after me will elaborate also but in terms of the legality of the rezoning i don't see anything here that makes me feel that was an issue, and also with site contamination we had lots of discussion about that on both sides, but also i think up here with the commissioners and for me i don't think the evidence was presented for me to be able to take discretionary review. with that i will make a motion to deny discreation review and approve the project. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. i don't think i have much to add. congratulations to the project sponsors and those that put a ton of effort in getting to this stage and getting built so i echo what my fellow commissioners s

>> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. and places you on items 16 a and b for case numbers 2012.1093ddv for 1521 - 1531 jones street. request for discretionary review and variances. >> good evening, commissioners. mark luellen planning department staff. i'm here presenting an abbreviated discretionary review forly watty. for a building that includes construction of a parcel one story vertical addition which is a fourth floor insertion as well as an insertion of an 8 by 6 foot garage door and a minor alteration to the front entry. the vertical addition is constructed entirely over the existing building and setback by 15 feet two inches from the front of the building, three feet on both north and south sides of the building, and a minimum of four feet on the existing -- from the existing rear building wall. subject property is located at 1521 jones street between jackson and pacific avenue within the rm-3 zoni

>> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioner, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. zoning administrator. >> the variance closed, [speaker not understood] granting requested variance off-street parking would result in the loss of on-street parking and alterations to the building which is a potential historic resource. if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please inform staff. >> congratulations. >> commissioners, that will place you back on item 12 for case no. 2012.1329u, california environmental quality act procedures. >> good evening, commissioners, amy rodgers planning department staff. i'm joined for this item sara jones, acting environmental review officer. before we begin our staff presentation i'd like to invite supervisor wiener up to make his remarks. >> hello again, commissioners. thank you for your [speaker not understood]. so, since the last time we were together on this item in november, i have as you requested convened a ser

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i think my questions on the -- following up on commissioner hillis were answered. as far as the other issue, i think staff had two points. one was the 30 days recommendation. i think i'm supportive of that. and also there was a second one on the board's consolidated or combined hearing. and i think we kind of touched upon that where a cu gets appealed, ~ then the thing would be accompanied by the c-e-q-a document or would the c-e-q-a document have to be appealed separately also? >> our recommendation had to do with when the board is -- the c-e-q-a decision making body. ~ >> you mean like on legislation? >> right. that would be in the case of legislation also. >> okay. but on a cu, for example, then, getting back to that just to be clear, if we approved the cu and it were appealed, and that appeal goes to the board of supervisors, then if there were an accompanying c-e-q-a document, whatever it was, would that, then -- the appellant would have to file a separate appeal on that, it wouldn't automatically go like with the legislation? >> that's correct.

commissioner sugaya. >> thank you, i have a few questions. i don't know if this is directed to staff or the project sponsor. the project sponsor's estimate of cost is $510,000. and as i understand what we would be approving in terms of the agreement. that number would be used in the agreement specifically as the value that the project sponsor will be subtracting from the rest of the impact fee that they are subject to, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> what happens if the project sponsor's construction costs for the improvements go beyond 510,000? does the project sponsor eat that cost? or does he -- or they have the ability to come back to the commission and say, sorry, the 510 suddenly bloomed to 650 or something. and we want to attract the additional amount off of what we are subject to. >> yes, they have the ability to come back to the commission and to basically readopt this. and this is a measure in the agreement that the director can approve a nonmaterial change. or increase to that amount. >> commissioner, my understanding i

commissioner sugaya? >> isn't it reasonable to have a set back. i mean there is a huge set back on the other side and it seems to be a little more equity if they were building back, but that would be some kind of, you know, gesture, our good neighbor gesture and so their rear portion is also set back from the property line. i know that it is a judgment call. and it is easier to push the house to the left. >> it is not unreasonable, we look at each one. and there is factors that you have to weigh in. and the example of the dr filers deck is that it extends beyond and in essence leads to the creation of this light by extending their wall back and sort of closing that area in so in a way that could make an argument that they are creating the situation for the windows that may face out

. >> sugaya. >> aye >> and president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, that motion passes 4-2. with commissioners borden and moore voting against. >> commissioners, you are now on public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> general public comment? >> and that motion, and... thank you. >> any public comment? >> seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. ?oo hi, i'm holly lee. i love cooking and you are watching quick bites. san francisco is a foodie town. we san franciscoans love our food and desserts are no exceptions. there are places that specialize in any and every dessert your heart desires, from hand made ice cream to organic cakes, artisan chocolate and cupcakes galore, the options are endless. anyone out there with a sweet tooth? then i have a great stop for you. i've been searching high and low for some great cookies and the buzz around town that anthony's are those cookies. with rave reviews like this i have to experience these cookies for myself and see what the fuss was all about. so let's see. while attending san francisco state university as an accountinging major, ant

. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously commissioners. >> folks i would like to remind everyone we have additional items on the calendar that we would like to get started if you don't mind leaving quietly please. >> we have housekeeping under the calendar. the request for variance must also be continued by the zoning administrator. the director of planning will act in the zoning administrator in this case. >> i will continue the variance to april 4 as well. thank you. >> commissioners at this time you have two remaining items, both informational. the first is 13, the city wide growth item informational item. >> good afternoon commissioners. john ram with department staff. >> if you will indulge me one second i forgot to mention this is bill's last day on the job. bill is retiring and i was remiss for not honoring him today. there will be other events and i ask that the commission adjourn in his honor today. as you know bill has been with the department for 27 years and before that was a muni bus driver so has worked for the city for 30 y

commissioners may i respond to one point that commissioner sugaya made. how to craft this legislation is language the lines of operators and how existing operators are performance in -- performing in an area. the concern of a ban you are not giving an opportunity -- only the existing operators who could be bad operators in some cases can be open. and you are setting up the ban. we are not addressing the bad operators but preventing good operators in the future. that's partly why we came up with this disapproval that acknowledging the proximity and giving the commission the oversight to look at more specific issues with potential new applicants. i just wanted to point that out. >> thank you. >> commissionera anan anant - commissioner antonini. >> i stand behind what was said that sometimes you award new ones to come in and maybe more refined. maybe a little more under control. and then otherwise you are dealing with the ones before. and they are not threatened by a competitor that could be putting a better product out for everyone. so i did not to keep fro

. >> commissioners hillis and sugaya are expected to be late and commissioner moore. >> here. >> first up are items proposed for continuance . item one planning policy on timing implementation is proposed for continuance to march 14, 2013. item two at 194-194(a) sweeny street is proposed for continuance to april powerth, 2013. item three case for 793 south van ness avenue is proposed an indefinite continuance. further on your calendars commissioners. under the regular calendar item 15, the bicycle parking ordinance is proposed for continuance and item 16 amendments to the planning code sections 604 to provide the copy on a sign shall not be treated as a new sign and continued to march 7. i have a few speaker cards for this one. item 17 for 35 la grande avenue, request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to march 21, 2013. under your 330 calendar commissioners you can not take this item up at this time but i would like to advise you there is a request from the project sponsors for this is proposed to continuance for april 4, 2013 so what was a long calendar is now short

commissioners may i respond to one point that commissioner sugaya made. how to craft this legislation is language the lines of operators and how existing opers

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. i think commissioner borden started off to stay we have a fairly specific duty in front of us and that is to consider the two issues that the dr is filed on, and not that other things aren't important. i think everybody expressed that fact -- at least the other three speakers before me and i am sure the two

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i guess to staff, when i first read this and i saw noncomplying, i thought, well, how can it be that they can expand a noncomplying -- what is the other term, nonconforming. >> nonconforming. >> so, but i still have a question in terms of -- i know under nonconforming you're not supposed to expand the building, but that's in a different kind of situation because it's actually a use question and this is actually a complying use. but if the building itself is too large for the lot -- >> exactly. >> to echo commissioner moore's concern, i think that compounding it by granting a variance

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i guess to staff, when i first read this and i saw noncomplying, i thought, well, how can it be that they can expand a noncomplying -- what is the other term, nonconforming. >> nonconforming. >> so, but i still have a question in terms of -- i know under nonconforming you're not supposed to expand the building, but that's in a different kind of situation because it's actually a use question and this is actually a complying use. but if the building itself is too large for the lot -- >> exactly. >> to echo commissioner moore's concern, i think that compounding it by granting a variance for the rear yard just makes it worse, i think, in my mind. and i think that commissioner hillis's approach, which i also penciled in here to bring that portion of building back at least to the conforming line of -- it's 20 whatever percent or feet, whatever it would end up being. >> 25%. >> it's indicated here on the first page of the drawing set. ~ as to where that complying line would be. so, that woul

. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> no. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 2 with commissioners moore and wu voting against. >> commissioner hillis, do you still have a question? >> no. i mean, i just wanted to comment. i think what's not clear, i think what's troublesome is we actually don't have answers what the process is now, you know, what we currently -- the process that we're under, that we've been under for the last 10 years, we can't have people answer when the c-e-q-a process ends. so, i think this goes a long way in clarifying that and i appreciate it. >> commissioners, that will place you under item 15, for case no. 2012.0325c for 344 fulton street, request for conditional use authorization. ~ at 344 for the benefit of the public, items 13 a and b have already been heard and taken out of order. >> good evening, president fong and members of the commission, my name is kevin guy with planning staff. the request before you today is for conditional use authorization to allow development on a

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i think my questions on the -- following up on commissioner hillis were answered. as far as the other issue, i think staff had two points. one was the 30 days recommendation. i think i'm supportive of that. and also there was a second one on the board's consolidated or combined hearing. and i think we kind of touched upon that where a cu gets appealed, ~ then the thing would be accompanied by the c-e-q-a document or would the c-e-q-a document have to be appealed separately also? >> our recommendation had to do with when the board is -- the c-e-q-a decision making body. ~ >> you mean like on legislation?