the project sponsor is not here. >> i live in this neighborhood and i am concerned about this because in my neighborhood, there is a lot of this already. there is too much that is here, and this may affect our children and our teenagers, because every morning they will pass by this, and there is something very interesting about this. there is something very interesting about this because it looks like this industry is very popular. i am concerned about this and this is still open. i am concern for my children and my teenager. thank you very much. >> is there any further public comment? the public comment is closed. >> i was going to move to approve. did we look at the issue about the oversaturation? >> under the previous ordnance that existed, there was a thousand ft proximity factor that went into play about the location. the principal use establishments, when this is the primary use of the facility. and there is also the excess reuse to be located without the thousand ft proximity. the ordinance was cut in half in last july, eliminating the thousand ft proximity and also the ability to seek the excess reuse provision. as i mentioned, several of them have accessory usage which is nonconforming. they cannot expand and no -- none of the new ones can operate. >> this clarifies what you have already said -- >> i have a couple of questions. if we have them here from the medical office for the other accessory is, does this mean that this will never be revoked? this establishment would not succeed, but there is other medical office that is wanting to be just right in this location? >> if this business was going to fail, at the medical provider was wanting to move into the space, this is permitted at the ground floor. there would not even be notification to neighbors. >> this is a good answer. this operator already has several additional establishments of this kind. when will we move into forming the region? >> 11. >> so we will have a number of these. thank you very much. >> i had a couple of more questions. you were talking about foot massage, but this is also hands and back. is this all of them? >> the business plan is focused on foot massage, and a small so -- this may also include the hands and the back. they do not have the private rooms that are found in other establishments. the planning code does not differentiate between this establishment and other establishments which is why they're here. that is what is being authorized. >> we see quite a few of these. is there any reason for the popularity? there is a market for this. instead of going across the street, they can relax in a different way. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: he was asking if there was a distinction between the regular massage and a foot massage. they could turn around and just turn this into a regular establishment? >> i am looking through the conditions of approval and there may be a way to focus the approval, if they were to become the full establishment that would have to come back to this but there are some implementations and some concerns about this because we do not regulate this. this is not considered changing use. >> and they'll have to get a health department permit? >> i have already applied for this and this is part of what they have to do under the ordinance. i do not know about the scope of their practice. >> as far as the person who made the public comments regarding children, my children and grandchildren receive foot massages in san francisco and in one instance, basically an infant, there is nothing wrong with minors being massaged, i assure you. >> we have the motion and the second to approve, with conditions. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes, 6-0. this puts us back, now, on the regular calendar. this is as designed. this is item number 12. >> please excuse the interruption. on item number 10 and 11, you continued this to december 2nd. there was a misunderstanding about the preferred date. the preferred date was next week. so, i would request that what we'd have to do is let the people who attended the hearing know about this change. you would have to take a new action. >> the attorney says we can do that under one motion. >> we will continue to november 4. >> does the maker have to do that or can anyone? >> i think it was me. >> i think you were, also. >> item 10 was commissioner antonini. what we will do, november 4. i am going to move to rescend the continuance of items 10 and 11. this is to december 2nd and continue them to november 4th. >> seconded. >> and is there an agreement? >> the seconder of that motion was commissioner sugaya. >> that's me. >> i have a question. >> do we know if supervisor chu has set up a meeting. >> there is one on monday. >> just one other comment, if we need to continue this, we could. this may be ok. i just -- without the partys being present, we will go with that. >> there is a motion and a second to rescend this from the 2nd to november 4th. commissioners? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. and now this is item 12, 2006 at 350 mission street. draft environmental impact report. comments will be allowed until 5:30 on december 10. >> i am brett bollinger. this is a hearing to receive comments on the draft of cir impact report, the mission street project. there is the demolition of an existing retail building and construction of a new 370 ft high office building with retell usage, 64 parking spaces. the staff is not here to answer your comments today, comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. we will respond to all verbal and written comments that we receive, and we will make provisions as appropriate. the hearing for approval or disapproval continue after this. that should be connected to the accuracy of the eir. please speak clearly so we can have an accurate transcript. and please state your name so that you can be adequately identified and you can be sent a copy of the comments for this document. after hearing the comments of the general public we will take any comments by the planning commission. the public comment period began september 15 until november 2, 2010. this concludes my presentation on this matter. and unless the commission has any questions i would ask that the public hearing be open. >> >> my comment card is for lee molten. you are right. is there any public comment on this item, the draft eir? in that case, public comment is closed. as you have heard, the comment period is open until november 1. this is monday. >> november 2nd. >> november 1st is on the draft eir. >> that was because the project was continued. >> i don't have a problem. tuesday. very good. antonini? commissioner antonini: this was well done and compliant with planning. it goes on to present other alternatives. that seems to be quite good. the co-complying without exemption, and the others that deal with certain parts of the project. the e.i. r. is happy with this. >> the eir was complete and adequate. i look forward to the project coming before us. >> that will put us on item 13. case 2010.0470c. this is a conditional use authorization. >> i am putra of the department staff. this is for a change of use from retell coffee stored to a self- service restaurant on 2301 market street in the commercial district. they are doing business through power up cafe with a gold's gym. this contains 550 square feet. this does not involve any improvement by the tenants. the project sponsor wants to have this occupied by a self- service restaurant that does not formula of retail. they can support this product because the company was planning to close the cafe. the department recommends approval with conditions and sciences to be desirable for the following reasons. this is consistent with the general plan, and the projects usage will generate additional commercial activity. and is currently has 11 vacancies, and this is also well serviced by the public transit. the neighborhood contains a mixture of neighborhood retail, and services, and it should not be adversely affected by changing these to allow a small self-service restaurant. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. >> the project sponsor? >> good afternoon or good evening, commissioners. this is a very modest application, between castro and market. simply allowing the new restaurant owner to sell food that is not prepackaged, food that may be made of side or on site. opposite this is proposed as a small self-service restaurant. there is no table service. this is to encourage the members of the gym to have food available to them. and the reason that the restaurant owner is not here, is because they cannot commit until the conditional use is approved for them to make food there. >> thank you. >> other any additional public comments on this item? if not, the public, is closed. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> i would like to clarify. [no audio] >> there is an owner with a letter of intent. we're not making this public but they cannot sign the lease until they know that they can be located there. they would just be there selling prepackaged foods and coffee. >> commissioner? commissioner sugaya: there is news of the golds gym franchises severing ties to the organization, that is contributing money to causes not favorable to san francisco. >> to our interests. >> moore? commissioner moore: the community is in support of this. i have spoken to the neighborhood organizations and they believe that they are stepping out of their corporate structure because of these reasons -- >> commissioners -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes, 6-0. which puts us on item 14, 2009- 0278c, for 1814-1816 anza street. >> is there nobody here? >> let's -- forgive me. this is a staff -- the staff is not present. >> let's hold this and move to 15. >> item 15, 2010.0039c. for 185 berry street, the conditional use authorization. >> starting to listen to the game. >> it's not on yet. >> yes, it is. >> 4:37. >> have you seen the recommendation? >> would you like to move to the next one? >> i can do no. 16. >> the case before you is number 2010.0039c, the proposal for three new panel incentives for part of the wireless transmission network, operated by verizon. this complies with the applicable requirements of these policies, and the facility's guidelines. we recommend that you approve the request with conditions. and i have the speaker card. >> the project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. we concur with all the staff recommendations and if you have any questions i will be happy to address them. >> and is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment has been closed. commissioner borden? >> i will move to approve. >> on that motion -- >> borden? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved, that motion passes 5-0. this is item 17, 20100788u. file number 10-1094 for the child care feasibility study. >> the ordnances before you requires a city agency or private developer to produce funds for the development project for the building site for child care. as you go into the specifics of this, it would be better to let you know that the department and others are concerned about this. the supervisors set up a working group with members from the department of children and families and youth, as well as the office of work force and economic development and planning department, and together we worked on modifications that they would be sponsoring and the supervisor has agreed to. the modifications would be to not apply this requirement to the people with funding, but just to the people with projects. and this would focus that the city is a leader in providing child care. penny new needs, and the cost of providing these services should be known, and budgeted out. the department of children use and families would provide all of the information for the feasibility study that is related to child care needs and it was held up the sponsoring city agency. and i have a statement that supervisor dufty was wanting to have read. this is actually from his aide, for the supervisor. we're asking for you to support this with the modifications before you. >> and is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment has been closed. >> i was wanting to ask some questions, about what project that this would apply to? >> i am going into the full explanation. >> can you give me the examples, with the leasing of space? >> this would apply to when the city was going to purchase this space in excess of more than 25,000 square feet. >> i am just trying to think. >> when the planning department moved their offices, -- we have a stable lease. this is when they are looking to relocate with the new offices. >> i do not have anything against this legislation, but it seems that we have a much larger issue related to child care and not that many opportunities with the city is leasing the new space. and it seems like -- >> we do currently have the child care -- and we have the hotel developments to add more than 50,000 square feet. they will have to pay into this for the child care. the feasibility study that is required to be submitted, opera that we're looking at right here. we are looking into how much this would cost to provide child care to the employees. we will look at the architectural space, for all the information about the existing deficit of child care, and if there is need for this agency. if the board is approving the funding. this was not in the original legislation. this will give you a control, and the board can say that this is a reasonable amount of money for you to provide and we would like for you to add this into your budget. all you can say that the burden is too high, and we will approve the budget without the child care. but it will bring this into the dialogue and it will make certain that this happens. >> this is trying to create parity with what we expect. >> the planning code applies to everybody, except the federal government and the redevelopment agency. this may also apply. this is a very low impact fee. >> that would have the impact the and the feasibility as well. but there is nothing to take into account, moving forward within the impact? >> you can decide to actually provide child care so if they did this do not have to pay the impact fee. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i think in terms i am -- in principle, i am in support of this ordinance. my concern is that we very recently had a very large develop -- rebel the project being developed under the development agreement, with treasure island and hunter's point. and the more remote location of these projects, including the hotel and the office space of significant size, my question is whether these projects would fall under this provision, based on what you are saying, that the redevelopment project -- that this would be concerned that we are leaving a very large hole in these areas. >> we do not have jurisdiction in these areas. we do not have the ability to place specific controls on these or the federal government, as much as we may want for them to participate we do not have the jurisdiction. >> but those projects have child care as part of the plan? >> this is part of the development. i know that the federal government building is a joint venture between the government and private development with a very large child care facility. and the federal government is quite aware of what it takes. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: can you tell me what this means? >> this is part of the concerns that were raised in the other agencies, because this was not defined. this is with the feasibility studies and we were wondering if the study would run between 5- $20,000. there is a small amount of city funding. this is one reason we recommended the modification. >> it says that after the study, with the provision of job care not being given to the working group legislation being modified, if this is not required, then why are you doing this?