Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 19, 2014 8:00pm-8:31pm PST

8:00 pm
>> yes. then this would be 39 and 41. this permit before the board i believe was for the work on the west side of the property. >> we understand that. we have a permit for that. this permit is only for one side. >> i think what he's saying is if you add the address you include the east side and pick up that work. >> why do we need a second permit? >> the current permit is only for unit 41 and is only for the west side. if you add the address of 39 to the west side footing you're done there. if you add this foundation work which would be on the east side and then clarify the 39 and 41 -- >> we can't do that. >> we can do that. >> we can? >> yes, if that drawing is for
8:01 pm
the east side then why is there a second permit needed? it's one permit for all the work. >> go for it. >> it can be accomplished without any new permit required. i want mr. duffy to say yes. >> okay. >> i think the most important thing is that we get both numbers on the 39 and 41. that's really important. >> yeah, we've already committed to that. >> so the motion, if i may restate what i believe it should believe, would be to grant the appeal and condition the issuance on adding 39 lake street to the permit and also revising the skoepz scope of work to include the work in the plans tonight. >> subject to plan review. >> it will be subject to plan review just by the nature of
8:02 pm
the process. >> i stated it very well, didn't it? >> you did. >> was there a date on those plans? >> yes, they're dated 12/17. december 17. >> okay. so again, to up hold this permit on condition at the permit address will be amended to include 39 and 41 lake street with adoption of revised plans dated december 17, 2014. on that motion to up hold with that condition and adoption of revised plans, president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is four, zero. this permit is upheld with that condition and revised plans. thank you. >> there is no further business. >> we are adjourned.
8:03 pm
>> happy holidays, merry christmas. christmas. .
8:04 pm
8:05 pm
8:06 pm
>> welcome to the planning commission regular and final hearing for welcome back this thursday december 18, 2014, please be advised that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind that may sound off and and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this point. >> commissioner president wu commissioner fong commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner richards. >> commissioners first at this consideration for items proposed for continuance i have no items proposed for continuance next on our agenda is the consent calendar stem one case at 80 missouri street you conditional use
8:07 pm
authorization commissioner moore has requested we pull this off agenda. >> yes. commissioner president illig please. consideration of draft minutes for december 4th, 2014, the regular and joint hearing. >> any public comment on draft minutes seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> move to approve the minutes of december 4th. >> second. >> on that motion to daft the minutes for december 4th commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on commissioners
8:08 pm
questions or comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> like to wish everyone a happy hanukkah and happy new year and pleased at the last hearing we have calendar 3 projects that all purport to do great things for inform san francisco in the future and great way to end this year i hope to be an exciting 2015. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i ask that we please close the day in memory of joefrn now with the memorial behind us we're losing an inspiring person please join me i have two other issues i'm very pleased to hear two press releases one on the produce market with a strong plan to move into the future
8:09 pm
i would ask the department to give us a presentation of how it's moving forward how it fits into the eastern neighborhood plans and how it is addressing the ever present issue of pdr with the retention and expansion second thing i was very happy to hear he particularly after we had a tough special meeting a few weeks mayor ed lee annuity that $5.5 million guest gift from the kaiser permanente was a bright light particularly in light of our own top discussion on that topic matter and i think where my - that's it
8:10 pm
for today. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to on to item for the 2015 draft schedule hearing a consideration for documents in our packets a property hearing schedule generally every year we cancel 12 hearings they're proposed on this schedule ones you may want to consider are february 19th for the chinese new year and the 9th for the easter holiday otherwise standard cancelations. >> is there any public comment on the proposed 2015 schedule okay seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i wanted to make some suggestions we saw lecture i don't know if we see today,
8:11 pm
we'll see when our schedules get compressed because at the end in particular our sessions end up being very, very long i think 2015 is a busy year i make suggestions first of all, in january because we have a holiday at the beginning of most we probably should think about reinstating the 29th i'm not sure i need direction on the chinese new year is it the date that the chinese new year starts i don't know what date it start i feel the same thing about the 30th of april i mean, if we're going to cancel the ninth to allow for easter i think we should back that and the rest of the calendar seems to plains to me it's pretty standard with what we've done in the past if
8:12 pm
it gets busy we can add back in the phase that's my suggestion to add back the 29th of january and the 30th of april. >> commissioner moore. >> and in parts of forward i believe commissioner antonini suggested we have our meeting on january 29th particular coming out of two cancelled meetings in december december 2014 and january 2015 are huge gap in our workload i think that particular date is in support of his suggestion. >> for me, i think if we're interested in adding back the meeting the january data makes sense the april date is hardly because i think that becomes
8:13 pm
like 12 meetings in a row the commission functions better with a break in the middle. >> commissioner richards. >> i support the additional meeting on the 29th of january i'm all for shorter and more frequent meeting in support of adding that back. >> commissioner antonini. >> if we add back the meeting it will be the 12 between the april before our next break and july 30th deserves a break in april. >> yes. >> commissioner fong. >> i just assume add more meetings to the calendar and keep them shorter their ineffective if they go beyond 8 or 9 hours we can conceal one or
8:14 pm
two but with the understanding we'll loss one or two that's okay. >> okay do i hear a motion. >> commissioner antonini and well, i'll move my earlier suggestion is to add back the thursday the 29th and the thursday the 30th at this time leave the calendar with the understanding if it becomes light we can eliminate a day but if p.i. we don't add it on he'd of time if i'm not mistaken to add a day. >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to adapt the your 2015 hearing schedule adding january 29th and april 30th back to the regular meetings commissioner antonini commissioner hillis
8:15 pm
commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item or under department matters item 5 directors announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners a couple of announcements to bring to your attention the first t is we'll be interearly next year our series of meetings on the departments budget on days packet is the budget fiscal year of this fiscal year as well as the process for next fiscal year we'll have hearing at preservation commission in january to start the process and the budget is due to the mayor in by the end of february secondly, in the dortsz the written director's report the
8:16 pm
pipeline the residential pipeline you'll notice the numbers in the pipeline are continuing to increase from the previous quarters i'll point out that the departments new application are continuing at a nearly record pays for smaller projects there is a substantial increase in the smaller projects coming down and my thought die to the low interest rates as the desire to roommate building rather than move because of the cost of real estate in san francisco thirdly, want to point out i believe you received an e-mail from our communicated director with the annual report is out in on our website we'll be giving us hard copies in the next couple of weeks there is a new available on the departments website the annual the fiscal
8:17 pm
year 2013-2014 annual report on the departments website with that, i'll close by wishing you a happy holidays and see you next year. >> commissioners that places us 80 on item 6 past event with the planning, zoning and economic development. >> good afternoon repairing no planning things but clean up items one the first one is the moratorium dispensation afro-for the pdr this passed it is second read and 639 asian pacific islander at that avenue continued until january 7th for us introductions the first one introduced by supervisor tang
8:18 pm
which is an planning that the businesses retain a permit this will be coming for our review and comments the second one a noise regulations relating to residents on places of tenant sports audio supervisor breed and supervisor wiener that amends the administrative planning and police to require a continuation for new field testing under circumstances amongst this requires that the planning department and planning commission consider the noise issues when considering new projects that it will be coming to you also introduced were the general projects for the unifying you've reviewed and the article two was adapt are introduced at the board and
8:19 pm
heard at the land use committee on january 26th that concludes my report. >> he read it was appealed to the board do you know when that is heard. >> it was appealed january coming up. >> coming up. >> and it might be continued i think there was a request to have it continued yeah. >> thank you. >> commissioners the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday it was a record short meeting that laughed a record 15 minutes most of the items were continued with exception to one the recommendation to the board of supervisors to landmark the goldberg building and i don't believe we have a board of appeals report so commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move 101
8:20 pm
on to item 7 discussion for the environmental review reports. >> good afternoon, commissioners sarah jones environmental review officer, i'm here today and happy to live thank you for the opportunity and explain one aspect of our sequa work at the planning department for people that don't do sequa everyday it seemed sausage is making inside a black box i'm giving you ingredients there's been lack of clarity about the issue of common periods on draft eirs there's uncertainty about the who is responsible for granting that extension and the circumstances under which it would be extended
8:21 pm
i don't feel there's a need for a lack of clarity and happy to have had the opportunity from the here level of confusion around the 5 m issue to mitigate this situation i'll talk about my considerations and this questions come up and also talk about how the planning commission might act on this issue so the standard review period and i prepared a memo on this issue that's excluded in our packet hopefully, you've had a chance to review that i'll go over it the standard review period on a draft eir established in sequa is 45 days the eros roll in general and implementing what sequa says and what's in the sequa guidelines
8:22 pm
so as i think through the length of the period i'm thinking about the appropriate comment period based on circumstances with a particular a eir that makes the period inadequate to fulfill the purposes of the comment period those circumstances are due to the timing of the eir and the complexity and maybe the opportunity for public review that have already occurred in the environmental review process on the project in my view if the comment periods need to be longer 45 days we can establish that at the time before publication of the eir i think this is a much better practice and there are circumstances that
8:23 pm
are known at the time of the draft eir politician take into account i've spelled out in my memo some of the reasons a longer than 45 day comment period one involved multiple sites in multiple locations throughout the city one a situation in which we not prepared an issue study when we prepare an eir we identify the topics for not a significant impact that is circulated at the time of the notice of preparation of the eir the public has a chance to you review and comment and that goes into the eir further if the issue study is not prepared so that the draft eir is the first chance the public has for substantive comment options is impacts of 0 project so i think
8:24 pm
in that circumstance it may be that a longer comment period is warranted another situations a major holiday we've gone through the calculation you can't have a 45 day period that doesn't include a holiday and if you throw in the times people are busy you're in a situation you'll be expending that but times of the year right now the multiple major holidays and if a comment period is spanning that it needs to be longer sometimes assess considerations due to language or online issues depending on the location and sometimes, we need to reline particularly meet that so those are the circumstances i'm asking to consider a longer comment
8:25 pm
period is sometimes something unknown a politician arises and because of that i might extend a comment period after the publication of the draft eir usually that's a noticing error there are a lot of nos o notices we've inadvertently missed that we extend the comment period for 45 days sequa is 60 days the need to be reasons it has to be longer than 60 days without such reasons would constitute usual u unusual circumstances i consider 60 days a good period that's the perimeter i'm considering in those extensions i also want to talk about the planning commissions consideration
8:26 pm
obviously you are not operating under exactly the same set of responsibilities as a ero, however, i recommend you strike with clarity in our decision again you have a question about a review period and act as a body by taking a vote chapter 31 the extension of review period is granted to the commission therefore acting as a body is an appropriate way to go sequa also says that 60 days should be the outside limit unless circumstances if you're going to consider a comment period longer than 60 days r days you need a presence of what is unusual circumstances those are my recommendations to you i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. or discussion on the matter.
8:27 pm
>> okay opening it up for public comment first any public comment on this item? item 7 ? >> sue hester who's been doing eirs in san francisco since i started one of the things that really is unclear to me and other members of the public who is in charge of the public this is not explained clearly and one of the unusual circumstances for example, on 5 m you had a presentation that started with the planning department but quickly transitioned to ken rich
8:28 pm
and the developer we have other projects that are being handled by missouri he had and other parts of the city you've got to tell people where to find files abused a person like me that reads an eir not only reads the eir but looks at for the file to know the project there was a lot of a.m. gut about the 5 m recorded that has multiple approvals in multiple places it wasn't an area plan and the first preservation we've had was before the eir i have been looking in the eir for who i contact who's in charge of the project that should be explicit in the eir partly because go planning is good about providing records we see get records fast in the
8:29 pm
planning department thank you sensitivity people and the bureaucracy dealing with requests missouri ed is not i have a request in for files because it is observe they're involved i'll get the answers after the first of the year because they have bureaucracies beyond belief to get files it needs to be understood the project description a often been the approval files that are not the ero files second thing is information items have to be considered on complicated cases like on c pfc and the neighborhood plan on the multiple area plans there should be information hearing not before the hearing on the
8:30 pm
eir because that's dirty pool but structured to people said what the project is that is coming especially on a complicated area plan or i give you the academy of arts you're about to have the academy of arts eir which is 60 sites and 12 areas that are geography areas and the world's most complicated eir in my opinion the academy of arts you need to do some ground rules. >> is there any additional public comment? okay seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini >> i'd like to thank sarah john's for on excellent presentation and tend to agree especially i don't know you've mentioned an initial study and