on the motion for continuance, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: no. president miguel: motion to continue is not debatable. you have to call the question. the motion to continue is not available. >> motion to continue to october 7. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: i'm going to say no for now. commissioner lee: no. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: no. >> motion fails on a -4 vote. -- 3-4 vote. the motion currently on the floor is for approval of all components of the case including the adoption of the ceqa finding. commissioner sugaya: yes. if that is going to be the direction the commission is taking, i'll have to vote against the motion. if you separate it out, i can vote for some of them but not for another one. so, i'm just letting you know that. >> as maker of the motion it doesn't matter to me if we -- oh, all right. well, then i guess we should separate it. well then let's do each one individually. beginning with -- unless -- commissioner borden: i i think we want to t

with that, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: just a few reflections on a long day of interest in comments. thank you for your input. i cannot help but believe that a new hospital at cathedral hill will not improve access for people in the area. it is a hospital for all of san francisco, of course, but it is very important that those close by have the advantage, and as everyone probably knows, in emergency situations, hospitals are obliged to take anyone in critical condition or with critical needs. i think with an area that has the highest concentration of children and people where that might be a consideration, more often than not, i think that is a big benefit. as is the case with any hospital, although you may receive your emergency care there for some care, you may end up, if hospitalization it is necessary, at another facility, just as i have had keyser and i haven't occasion to have to go to the hospitals with family members -- and i have had occasion to have to go to other hospitals. i think it is a

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: while we don't comment on public comment, i would ask staff to please talk to mr. hart about how our calendar really works and that items are never really closed. there is a category for comment on items that have been closed that staff can go over that a little bit more with the speaker. not today, but privately. >> thank you. commissioners, you can move forward on the calendar and beginning the regular calendar with nine, 2010.0790u, e-distribution report. >> good afternoon, commissioners annmarie rodgers and this is an amendment to the code and a hearing that you requested to weigh in on additional planning and land use applications if proposed ordinance would provide for documents of 10 pages or longer and all city departments and city officials should primarily do them by e-document and i'll go over that in a little bit in more detail. this ordinance was sponsored by the supervisor and i would like to introduce his aid to talk about the origin of the ordina

commissioner antonini: i think i can agree with that. it's a little more complicated with the commercial, as you point out. even though it's voluntary in most instances, it's fine the way it's written. i certainly appreciate his point on that. the rest of it i think is very well done and i agree that with allowing it not to count against your maximum because, you know, it may be that we wouldn't have car share spaces because project sponsor would say, well, we're fine with the ones we have and they're in use. if question add a couple of car share spaces we'll do that -- if we can add a couple of car share spaces we'll do that. >> if there's a car-free building that they should not trigger the car share requirement, that's something that should -- should be considered probably by the commission. for the commercial requirements they get triggered based on the number of parking spaces that are provided. but for residential buildings, they are triggered based upon the number of units. so, the commission might want to consider, if a building

commissio ner antonini? commissioner antonini: a couple of things from over the high ate tugs. the first was an article in the chronicle, i believe yesterday by john king, and it dealt with an elementary school that had recently been built in piedmont that replaced the school there built in the 50's and probably was a pretty funky looking structure that had a lot of sides mick problems. they were actually able to build something con techs wall and shows that can be done and john king a strong advocate for contemporary architecture, aappreciates this and it maybes it fit in and belongs in the area. it's sort of a spanish revival architecture that is popular in piedmont. the second thing was that regrettably over the break, had to attend two or three funerals for people who passed away, all of which are members of what's known as the greatest generation and they deserve that title. that's people of my parents clerk furuzawa generation in their late 80's and 90's, and many are passing away. what's sad is when you talk to their children who are there, while the decedent and all sib

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thanks. i have a few comment and then a few questions. i think your comment about balance is important and to make sure the in-kind improvements are balanced and there are efficiencies and quality that you will avail yourself of by having some of this done by in-kind rather than going through the city and just sometimes we're backlogged and you can get things done by people who are experts in doing these things at a better cost. my one concern is that this is raised by the coalition of neighborhoods and you replied to my phone call and the planning commission has the authority and the cac's are advisory to us on that and you made that clear, but that these things should be vetted citywide and that the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods made a good point and this is a citywide policy and i would be supportive of a continuance because it's important to get the input, too, because these are being applied to specific areas that would be applied citywide as new areas come up. >> by definitio

commissioner antonini: same thing. i believe that was electronic documents was administrative code but i think that that's important if we hear that, too, as to its practicality. >> ok. and then the zoning administrator did want to relay a couple of pieces of information to you. the first concerns a demolition determination that was included in your pacts last week. and the second pertains to the board of appeals summary for this week. it has been the practice of the department to inform the commission when administrative approval for demolition has been granted, pursuant to code section 317. last week the department submitted a copy of an administrative approval for a proposed demolition at 580 diamond street. the department reviewed the soundness report for this property and found it to be unsound. the department also performed a historic resource evaluation response and found that the building was not a resource. the project proposes demolition of this structure and new construction of a two-unit building. the proje

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. this is an example of things that can be gained through the pre application process. as was pointed out by the residential design team has supported the project and actually did not field this rose to the level of significance that would have come under the d.r. process. i think they are doing as a great service. i am not sure what the actual condition was, but it is probably one that was uninhabitable in its present state. so this is creating three habitable units where there were not effectively, and it is rh-3, and the 12-foot setback is what i think has been worked out by the residential design team and is correct here. i agree that is more of a view that a light issue. so i would move to not take d.r. and approve the project. president miguel: is there a second? commissioner sugaya: i will second, but i have questions first. are we having railings on top of this thing or what? >> no, sir, there is no glass reeling. commissioner sugaya: okay, i must be thinking of a different proj

. >> commissioner, antonini. >> commissioner antonini: i just want to talk to the sponsor about a couple of things. i napped, i think you said your -- i understand, you're limiting your events to four or five per month? >> we are. >> that's part of it. the other thing they brought up was limiting their events on to midnight on friday and saturday nights and 10:30 on week nights. is that something you could live with on a condition about >> we already shut down the outdoor space, the indoor could go later. we're talking about art gallery openings, they could go to 1:00 but not much later. >> guess that would probably be the absolute latest i would say on weekend nights probably would be 1:00 a.m. >> and then the earlier maybe on week nights, let's say 11:00 and 1:00. >> 11and 1:00. i doit it'll come that late. the other thing i say, you should -- the other thing i should say, you should probably encourage those that rent the space to talk about having valet, especially with a wedding or something. you know, not too many -- not too many. would probably be in their interest to have their gu

that's a calendaring issue, unless you had something, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: certainly calendaring is something we should always discuss and having it calendared to discuss calendaring next week sounds reason to people. >> about that, i will came names >> i want to thank the commission for all your consideration, your goodness, and your kindness shown to me. i resided at 1054 geary street. not many years, only 49. and i am a young senior citizen, just 86. i want to thank you for all you have done, all the people on this staff, and made it possible, now i am residing at the gran ada on center street. thank you for everything, your goodness, your kindness, thank you. clark clerk mr. president, if i can just restate an earlier announcement for those of you downstairs in the north light corridor if you hear your name, please come up. let the guards know your name is called so the president can keep going and the hearing can keep going. the president will call a number of cards at one time. if you hear your name let the guards know your name

president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i brought up the question that as we talk this tunnel on vannes, that we look at it with a future eye of a subway because that i think should be the way the city is looking at in the future. the law of physics says you can't put two onths in the same -- objects in the same spaces. if you really want to improve, you know, traffic and safety, you've got to avail yourself of some, you know, other uses, subterranean to at least move your transit and free up the surface level for other uses. that will be a great thing. but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with this particular project. but i think it's important that we, at least take that into consideration when talking about -- where the tunnel's going to be. couple of other things that came up, the first is that i do agree with commissioner olague. she did mention, housing jobs linkage. and my understanding is that it does apply to the medical office buildings. that's what i've been told. i'm not sure of th

commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> again, that's approved, 6-1. thank you. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. president miguel: we are now at general public comment on items not on the agenda. is there anyone for nonagendaized public comment? if not, public comment is closed. we will take a 15-minute break. before we go into executive session. >> thank you. >> public comment that i'd like to make. may i? i'd like to make a public comment that's not on the agenda. >> we have closed public comment and we're in recess at the moment. there is no public comment. >> because the developers are in the front they get to jump >> ok. the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, before you actually go into closed session , would you have to ask for public comment. so let me call item 13 into the record. this is planning director performance evaluation. and the commission is meeting -- will meet i

with that motion, commissioner antonini? aye. sugaya aye olague aye mig. aye. motion passed unanimously, thank you. for the record i'll announce the planning commission has continued item 16 a and b for 3739 lloyd street until october 14th. you're now on item 17 for 5 seymour street. >> good evening commissioners. i'm david slindcy department staff. the project -- the project is to legalize construction done approximately 20 years ago without permit at 5 seem more street. the work proproceedsed to be -- proposed to be legalized is a trellis and the rear deck and replacement of several windows on the front and rear facades. under this current application, the dormer is proposed to be setback 10 feet from the front facade of the building. it is currently at five feet setback from the front facade of the building. then the reason for doing this is to make it less visible from the public right of way. the d.r. filers own number 7 seymour street north of the subject property. the filers believe the project adversely affects their property, specifically their privacy

. >> commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? >> aye. >> thank you, commissionerses. you are now on item 11, 2010.0464 contraction for 445 valencia street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. erica jackson, planning department staff. before you is a request for conditional use authorization under planning code to allow a new massage establishment within the valencia street commercial district at 445 va leps ya street and -- 445 valencia street. it meets the planning code criteria. and the business has three xiing locationses within san francisco and all three locations are in good standing with the department of public health and have received all the required city approval. there are no open vying violation cases with the building department and with the planning department for the three locations. the applicant has filed a new massage permit with the department of public health for the new location. and condition approval with insures that the applicant maintains in good standing with the department of health and failure to do so

commissio ner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i add couple of questions for jessica. thank you. very good report. i guess the first question is, it is a bay area, you know eqa guidelines, and one would assume this is being done for the entire bay area. if we take an in fill project and we move it to a distant area, we are not only creating the greenhouse gas emissions that the project itself will have just because the residents are there, cooking, hair spray, who knows, all the types of things that people will do to add to that, but will also add to that the commute, assuming that a high percentage of these people in the in fill project work in san francisco or close to san francisco. i assume this is being evaluated as part of the entire study. >> well, it is correct in that we have commented to the air district on that exact scenario of that being an unintended consequences of their guidelines. the way the methodology is set up right now is currently does not accurately reflect some of the green house gas, or other air quality reductions or benefits of in fill devel

commissioner antonini: 90. i believe that was extremely well done, and i agree with your belief that this eir is complete and thorough. i would also like to point out that in regards to the analysis, which you mentioned of the office space and residential space in the area approximately between market and probably folsom and fremont, actually, 1/3 of the square footage, as you pointed out, of the office space in the downtown financial district is now located there. or about, rather, 15%, but the residential space is about 1/3 of the office space in the area, said they are both uses that are quite well studied in the area, and i also appreciated your historical analysis, in particular, the reference to 631 howard st., which was very well done. so i think it is well done. i would move to certify. >> second. again for the general public, remember the eir addresses the alternatives, and some of the issues brought up. we will discuss later, but the eir itself i think is very well done, and michael here is extremely

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thanks. i have a few comment and then a few questions. i think your comment about balance is important and to make sure the in-kind improvements are balanced and there are efficiencies and quality that you will avail yourself of by having some of this done by in-kind rather than going through the city and just sometimes we're backlogged and you can get things done by people who are experts in doing these things at a better cost. my one concern is that this