understood. i guess at some point, when we revisit the rules, i like to discuss when a commissioner is in the middle of deliberation and an attorney is called up, i think it is disruptive to the process. i think that is in many ways what happened last time, because we were being challenged by an attorney for the project sponsor. when we get to deliberation, it is an outsider. it is a person. somebody wa member of the commission, and it felt very much like we were in debate, almost, i don't know. when we get to the question of rules again, i like to look at i concede: up for clarification and architect -- i could see calling out for clarification and architect, but i thought the attorney put us in that position. i did not feel like it was a

constructive conversation. i can see calling out staff for clarification or certain members of the project team, the that nature was a little different. i think what we call pulte -- it is important -- i know we cannot put rules on that, but we need to be sensitive to that a little bit. secretary avery: commissioner olague, in response, i would just say that part of -- to address that, you might want to empower your president, whoever, to be there stopped the proceedings until that type of behavior ceases or to call a recess and kind of break the tension, so to speak. but i think the commission would need to empower whoever is chairing, or even to empower

the commission secretary, to stop the proceedings and address those situations. vice president olague: because then i could call the attorney from the other side and we could have a whole -- secretary avery: that is something for the body to consider. vice president olague: thank you. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: just to go back to the continuance, i did not vote for the continuance without anything happening in the interim. it to me, it is clear the continuance, the way i've voted for it, was to have, as i have said a couple times before, to have them look at those issues that were being raised at the hearing by people who testified and also commissioners' comments and other materials that were submitted. i don't think at the end of a couple of months, when it comes back in january, if we're just

going to reconsider the same document, that was not the purpose of voting for the continuance, at least from my standpoint. my vote on the continuance had nothing to do with whether there would be a full commission or not. secretary avery: thank you, commissioner sugaya. my take on it was so very different, and i will go back and review the tapes and provide all of you with a transcript so we can be clear on what to put. i could be totally wrong, and i would be willing to admit it. but that was not my understanding at the time the vote was taken. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: a couple of issues. the first is the issue brought up about calling people from the public to testify. i think all of the commissioners over the course of my time on the commission have frequently called up advocates or opponents on items during our discussion.

i think that is appropriate and it works both ways. i do not have a problem with that. but i will talk a little bit about our rules. i agree entirely with secretary avery, it is not just eir hearings. at the same times at discretionary reviews where you need four votes, and absent another motion which would be a motion to continue, in the absence of four votes, it is disapproved. likewise, with conditional use, absent a motion to continue, absent for votes, 3-3 situation perhaps -- that is a little different, but definitely on the eir and applies that way. secretary avery: the city's attorney has advised me this has drifted towards rules and regulations, which is not on the calendar and we cannot be discussing that. president miguel: thank you.

john? >> just to clarify. i just want to go back to the purpose of this memo, which started this discussion. the intent of the memo was not to question the authority of the commission, it was to clarify. the commission gave us direction to do additional work on the eir. there is no question about that. the purpose of this memo was to clarify what the point of that was and to clarify what the commission's role is and what the additional questions the commission asked. the question of the continuance , whenever you continuing project, in my three years here, the purpose of the continuance has been to reconsider the project with new information or with a new design or whatever it might be. but there is an expectation of a change with that continuancec3]. unless it is about the issue

before the full commission. but i don't recall that being the issue in that continuance vote, either. typically when you continue an eir, u.s. for changes to be made and come back at a different date -- you ask for changes to be made and come back at a different made. but was the expectation we had. it was the assumption we have been working under. 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 entitlement process, articulated with ceqa, and that is how we

are interpreting the questions that were raised. s4 question then that you will be responding to -- >> yes. vice president olague: okay, i was not sure. and in terms of the exchanges that went on here, -- >> in terms of the exchanges that went on here two weeks ago, as various people said, you could have had a 3-3 tie be a disapproval, and the deficiency, if you want to interpret this from the project's sponsors attorney, what you are taking action, your not articulating findings. vice president olague: i read this was outside of the scope of certification, and i assumed you would not be responding to questions. >> i think the critical thing is whether you are disapproving or asking for more information, so

somebody does not have a basis for challenging it. president miguel: thank you. secretary avery: commissioners, that concludes that item. i would ask that we go back to the report and that miss rogers give her report on the board of appeal. >> good afternoon again. the director handed me some notes from the zoning administrator and there were a couple of items. the first has to do with the notice of violation and penalty for the academy of art university property at 460 townsend street. this was acquired and converted to academic use in september of 2009, well after their informal review application in may of 2008. it was uncontested they had converted the property without

the required conditional use authorization, a fact which an aau representative admitted at a hearing before the planning commission in 2009. the department commenced enforcement action, and after the complete enforcement process, it was appealed to the board of appeals. at the appeal hearing, aau argued they had a complete imp and the department was abusing its power by not allowed to go forward. the department responded it was an undisputed fact that the use of the property was changed without the required c.u. and that aau did not have a valid institutional master plan because the planning commission did not have access to the document and had been more than two years with the most recent some middle and that the -- of the most recent submittal and had not been reapplied.

the board of appeals upheld the ruling. the commission will be more thoroughly briefed on aau enforcement issues on december 9. there was also an appeal of a building permit subject to d.r. of this commission on december 10, 2009. at the hearing, the bicommission voted to approve the building permit as recommended with modifications. the project proposed an expansion of our rear yard cottage and a small new structure at the front of the property. the proposal includes numerous green building techniques, including rain water catchment and solar panels. the palin targeted to not comply with residential design guidelines -- the appellant

argued it did not comply with residential design guidelines. the board voted unanimously to uphold the commission's decision and approved a permit with the condition the scope of work excl the front structure, o fórequiring the project spono submit a new permit for the building. the department noted the project scope had already been thoroughly vetted through the process and section 311 cannot be required. that said, the second permit would also be appealable to the board of appeals. that concludes the d.a.'s summary of the board of appeals. president miguel: thank you. ]y commissioners, you are now at the 15 minute general public comment category. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission

with the exception of agenda items. with respect to this category, each member of the public may address you up to three minutes, keeping in mind the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. i do not have any speaker cards for this category. president miguel: is there any general public comment at this point on items that are not agenda items? >> sue hester. a couple weeks ago you heard the case of 35 lloyd and continued the case to december 2. yes, december 2. i talked with staff to find out what the turnaround time is to be with the revision to get this back before the commission. because of the holidays, the turnaround time is the end of next week. my status report -- i am the attorney for the project, is the

architect you gave instructions pretty clearly that the architects talk to each other, and the architect on this project is joe poplar. what i understand is this is not going to be ready. it is not going to be ready because it has taken a long time. we have not even had a meeting, unless it happened the past couple hours. there was a request from the developer with elaborate conditions before there would be discussions, that there had been agreement on the number of units, bedrooms, four stories, that one of my clients before a community board, which i thought was a waste of time. it is a lot of this procedural stuff. my clients are together. they have agreed to all this. but in the real world, you will not have that hearing on

december 2 it and you'll be faced with a continuance request, and you are not meeting next week and i will not be here on the 18th. i thought i should bring that up now because it is the last chance to tell you, thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any further general public comment? if not, general public comment is closed. secretary avery: thank you. commissioners, you are now on public comment on agenda items where public hearing has been closed. members of the public can have already been revid and a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed. that opportunity as at this time. each member of the public may address you up to three minutes. the only item that this pertains to would be item 4, case number 2,007.0519, 1645 pacific ave.

and i don't have any speaker cards for this category. president miguel: all right. is there any public comment on items were the hearing has been closed, which is item for? -- which is item 4? please consider that we will be following this with item five on a regular calendar. this has strictly to do with the certification of the environmental impact report. this has to do with the in our mental impact report, -- on the environmental impact report, not the request for conditional use and the project itself. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is sam.

i find the eir findings laughable and out of touch with the majority of the neighborhood issues. there were simply answered with, "no significant impact on the character, look, and feel of the neighborhood." i find it unbelievable that a large six-story building replacing a two-story building would have no impact. 32 residential units were there were none, at least that many cars, parking, daily traffic, and many more residents. we're not talking about factors, but 38 times, five times as large, and i wanted to make sure that it was noted that it will be a significant impact to the look and feel and the character of that neighborhood. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is

closed. commissioners? secretary avery: commissioners, you are now at consideration of findings and final action. a public hearing for this category is closed. the item before you is item number 4, case number 200 7.0519, 1645 pacific ave. what is before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report. >> good afternoon. i'm with the analysis division of the planning department. before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report for 1645 pacific avenue, which consists of demolition of the commercial building and its replacement with a new 65-foot tall, 32 residential unit building. a copy of the rest of the final eir certification motion is before you and was distributed

with comments and responses for the eir document on october 14, 2010. the draft eir for the product was published and circulated for review, and comments on the november 18, 2009, 62 days, ending on january 19, 2010. during the public, time, the historic preservation commission held a hearing on the draft eir on december 2, 2009. comments received from the historic preservation commission related mainly to cultural resources, the historic resources evaluation, and mitigation measures. these were memorialized in a comment letter from the historic preservation commission. the planning commission held a public hearing on december 10, 2009. 15 members of the public and three planning commissioners provided comments at the draft eir hearing. the planning department received a total of seven comment letters through the mail, and

other 3, fax and e-mail. the draft eir hearing transcripts and all, letters are contained in at the comments and responses document. the eir document was distributed and posted on the planning department's website. the planning department has fully complied with the provisions of the california environmental quality act, ceqa, ceqa guidelines, chapter 31 of the administrative code of the city and county of san francisco to communicate the ceqa process and the proposed project. the informal review process followed by the planning department to the proposed project has been procedurally correct and substantially adequate. besides individual responses to commons, the eir document includes changes to the draft eir. the changes is to clarify information or make minor changes and corrections to the eir document. some of those changes were due

to changes in the project, others were in response to comments received on the draft eir. other clarifications to the eir document resulted in changes and findings to the conclusion of the draft eir. the draft eir certification before the planning commission, certification is not an action to approve the project. it is just a decision the eir has been completed in compliance with ceqa and is adequate, objective, and accurate. if the planning commission certifies the eir, they can proceed with considering approval of the proposed project. asked to adopt mitigation measures and a recording program as part of the ceqa findings following the eir certification. since the document has come to the attention of the planning department, a comment letter was not included, however, concerns raised were adequately addressed

in the eir did not require discussion. a detailed memo responding to the, letter -- to the comet letter was distributed. inow i will readgñ record. regarding the changes it represents corrections to typos and errors in the comments and responses document. this is underlined, text deleted so that the document will be shown with a strike force. it will be included in the comment letters and it does not present meaningful information that would alter the conclusions presented and the draft eir and does not trigger the need to recirculate the 6c to the ceqa act. i have copies of that four

members of the public and the commission. it covers inclusion of the letter and is not present any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft eir. consequently, this will not trigger the need for recirculation pursuant to ceqa. subsequent to the preparation of the final eir, revisions to this product have been proposed or not analyzed and eir. -- which were not analyzed in the eir. it was a change from 15 fromto 10 feet on several floors. in response to concerns from the department, the product sponsor has indicated it would keep the 15-foot setbacks on the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors, including the

sixth floor, which was a project covered in the draft eir analysis. in7< rd(-evidence has been presented today that would change the conclusion released in the final eir. the department recommends the planning commission a drat -- about the draft motion before you that certifies you have reviewed and considered the content of the eir, decided it department's independent judgment, analysis, and that the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with the provisions of ceqa and chapter 31 of the administrative code of the city and town of san francisco. this concludes my presentation on this matter, unless commission matters at become less commissioners have any questions. thank you for your consideration. president miguel: thank you. commissioner olague? vice president olague: move to approve. commissioner antonini: second. president 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 treatments and sculpting to help reduce the apparent size and transition to the surrounding developments. the project would preserve an existing his store facade and incorporated into the garage entry. the property would transition from a relatively underutilized site with automobile repair and parking uses to a mixed use project. staff recommends support of the conditional use authorization request. we've received correspondence in support of the product from

individuals in the area as well as the housing action coalition and san francisco architectural heritage. these high light the quality of design, and the location of the housing. staff has also received letters in opposition from individuals and community groups that expressed concern about the scale of the project compared with the surrounding context, the loss of automobile repair space and jobs, shot is on the surrounding sidewalk, and degradation of views on pacific avenue. i should note that all of this correspondence both in support and opposition was received e design and projecteceived program changes described it today. the project sponsor and the neighborhood association have reached agreement on several revisions to the project that were described as part of the last item. it should this commission was to approve the project, staff would be to revise the motion to accurately describe the facade,

including accurate measurements to correctly describe the number of dwelling units. there was a reduction from 39 dwelling units described in the motion, to accurately calculate the number of units for the project, and to describe that the car share spaces proposed for the product would now be open to the public rather than solely set aside for use by the residence. this concludes my presentation, and i am available to answer any questions. mahnke. president miguel: -- thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the project sponsor and builder. if i could, i would like to bring out a representative from the neighborhood association who

has been a very tenacious advocate for the community and helped arrange the final compromise with the help of the president and board of supervisors just this week and i would like her to describe a few with the changes that we have made. and i will make i presentation of the project as part of my time, if i could. president miguel: ok. >> thank you, president miguel, commissioners. i'm what the neighborhood association. i live a few blocks from the proposed building. last week, we asked for one-week extension on this project and you offered that to us. we appreciate that.