is more of a collaborative process. in some ways, these are very one way. how can we incorporate something that indicates it is a two-way conversation? i know you have in your program priority developing a program 11 educational, but i also think education is a very important component. i know you have the program guides, but i do not think we can _ enough that many people do not know the basic process -- i do not think we can underscore enough. i think how we incorporate that message around education. and one of the things i have always felt we should do is an hour before a live televised planning commission, where there could be a one-on-one that we could televise so that people could come here or watch on tv at their convenience or look at it on the web to learn very basic -- ok, this is the order of have the meeting goes and this is one public comment is cured most people watch for a short time and may not see the entire sequence of how a meeting operates, but to do those basic topics and talk about what is ceqa and things like that i think would be very helpful for the public feeling more comfortable and wanting to engage in the process. i think there is the issue of having materials in various languages and reaching community groups in places where they are, but even once they have that information, there is a lack of comfort with -- how do i come to city hall, for this debate in the process, and make my voice heard? i think education is a key part of that. i am not sure if we want to add back -- that took understandable and transparent or if that is another principle we need to add. that is the other thing i am thinking of. but thank you for your work. i think it is leaps and bounds that we are having this conversation and looking at how we broaden this discussion any participation of people. commissioner sugaya: thank you. what is interesting to me, having read the memo that was presented to us and also in the presentation, is that there is no mention of the planning commission. it is extremely perturbing to think of the department as a separate entity from this commission. so i think the process to me is flawed. from the standpoint that it is the commission that makes the decisions. it is the commission to whom staff makes all their presentations. it is the commission to whom the audience and the public and interest groups and developers and property owners and others are speaking to, and yet, the entire program we have been presented has to do with department staff, so i am not ready to vote to support or wherever the action is that we are being asked to do today. and i think that it is also -- i do not know if it is telling for -- under program parties, you are using the word " branding." that is extremely disturbing to me, to use that word when we talk about a public department. are we trying to sell the department and commission to the public like we are through advertising a product or something? or are we trying to brand ourselves as some kind of -- i do not know what it is, but that one word if anything should be eliminated from this memorandum. so it is something that is greater than what you have presented, and i do not mean to be critical, but that is just my view point. just some detail things -- i do not know anything about the mayor's website, but if people are engaged in going to the website and presenting ideas, do they do anything with it, or do they just sit there and people can feel good that they said they liked or did not like the mayor or whatever? some other things i think will also be extremely difficult to address, especially if you are just using terms like "transparent" and "respect" and that sort of thing. i will give you an example. my view of the environmental impact process and the production of environmental impact reports are supposed to be, i thought, separate and apart from developers who are proposing projects, and yet, we have seen time and again where developer lawyers or others have the exact same language in their letters to us that appear in environmental reports. so my question is, in my mind -- who is writing these things? and i think the public has that same question. it happens a number of times. it happened last week where a lawyer's letter addressed the planning commission, had five or six points addressing the overriding considerations in the environmental document, and the staff report for that environment to documents in the overriding considerations had the exact same five points. i am not saying who wrote it -- maybe the lawyer took the language from the planning staff -- but in any case, i think if you were a member of the public and had noticed that, that is really, i think, something that needs to be corrected, but it is the way that the department and the process has been working up to this point. it is more deeply rooted, i think, than we realize. commissioner moore: i would share the majority of commissioners' concerns. while i think the intent and what was said in a power point presentation is really speaking to very good ideas, that what is in front of us in written form in the summary memo as well as in the resolution -- there is a big difference between what was presented and what was written. the writing overall is too much from the top down there are five points where the public spoke of a desire for more engagement. and that there is a community interest in exploring and communicating more information. however, how it is responded to, the department does not really go through the nature of the relationship of how that relationship changes. they are pretty much the annual tools. there are standard tools mentioned in any professional communication, but they do not really speak exactly to the specific voice of the neighborhood, and i would strongly agree with what is in front of us, given how many community members are showing up, which led to what is in front of us. commissioner wu: thank you. director? >> obviously, we have a lot of work to do, so we will ask for a continuance. i did want to address the point about the planning commission not specifically being mentioned. the whole idea of bringing it to you was to pass a resolution to direct the department to use these principles. it was based on that whole idea, that you are in charge of the department, and that is why we brought it to you to direct us to do this work. that is the reason why the resolution is what it that way toward the department. but the couple of suggestions i have, and perhaps we can continue it to a meeting in august, is that we would take those principles that we have put forward or others that you have raised and then flush them out in more detail so that it is not just a one-word statement, but there is an intent behind it that reflects some of the issues you have raised and the consistency of the language, so we will be happy to do that and bring it to you at a later date. >> i want to thank staff for their work and remind them of their original intent of this, which i believe now supervisor olague brought up, very much about the diverse needs of different groups and different communities, and i think it reflects some of the comments other commissioners have made today. in particular, i am looking for language access. i think the resolution is what gets referred to have passed in the future what people look back to for guidance on how the department engages the public. i would love to see some language about people who have not been engaged in the past. i took a look at other cities, similar guiding principles. i took a look at portland, and i think there was much more of a balance between what the department was going to do, what the expectation was from the public, so not just -- i think there is a particular focus on the department in these documents. i agree with commissioner borden's comments about education. i think it is a huge component of our reach, and i did not see it here, so i would support a continuance at this time -- i think education is a huge component of our reach. commissioner sugaya: just an example. it is a small thing, and i know linda will jump on me for this. let's say we have the commission in here in some fashion. we could have thought about and implementation -- we could have thought about implementation, and we could have had more meetings in the community for example. if that is what we want to do, we have only done it twice in the entire six years i have been on this commission. one was at the community center for an issue that was out there, and that we have one -- had one for parkmerced in the neighborhood. those of the only to the wheel of times we have left this room. i am not saying we should put it here, but i of the commission were thought of a little bit more as being involved in the program, there might be ideas like that that the commission could engage with as well. commissioner wu: thank you. >> may i suggest a continuance to one of the august meetings? perhaps the ninth? commissioner antonini: continue to august 9. then a second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item to the august 9 hearing. i will assume that the public hearing will remain open because of you are asking for staff to come back to consider your comments and bring you another document to consider. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. this item is continue to august 9. commissioners, you are now on items 7, case on mechanical car wash facilities on 19th avenue. >> i would like to acknowledge the aides who are here today. i will give them an opportunity to speak after i go through my presentation for a second. this ordinance before you would amend the planning code to permit existing automobile service stations to add gas stations, but only along 19th avenue -- did i say gas stations? car washes. it would allow gas stations to add car washes. looking at 19th avenue, most of the properties along 19th avenue are zoned for residential use. i just wanted to show you the colors of the map so you can see. this is showing highway 1, 19th avenue, and the lighter colored yellow is all residential. and the kind of purplish colors represent neighborhood commercial streets that cross over 19th ave. most in the area is residential. in general, commercial uses such as gas stations and car washes are prohibited residential districts, and this includes gas stations and car washes. he uses that currently exist in the area are considered to be non-conforming uses -- the uses that currently exist. they are encouraged to dissipate over time. while the use of car washes and gas stations is not a use we would typically want in residential districts, it is important to note that in this part of the city, there are no zoning districts that permit car washes, and the western part of the city's south of golden gate park. -- in the western part of the city south of golden gate park. so this is not considered an expansion of the use, but rather it is adding another use. therefore, these service stations, since they are non- conforming, they cannot add another car wash, either by right or to the condition of use currently. hence, we have the ordinance before us today, which would permit those under certain conditions. the first is that the gas station would provide a standing area on the premises of sufficient size to accommodate at least 1/4 of the anticipated capacity per hour. number two, the noise in the facility would have to comply with existing laws. 3, car washing and drying should occur completely within any clothes portion of the building. four, water reclamation and use must meet criteria established by the zoning administrator in consultation with the san francisco puc. and 5, a traffic study would need to be done to demonstrate that the operation would not cause significant impact on traffic on adjacent streets. lastly, the facility would be on a lot of at least 12,000 square feet. that is the ordinance in brief. we were considering where the existing gas stations are along 19th ave. there are 12, but only four meet the size threshold. that is in the packet for you. they are on the overhead for the public. and it is hiding in my pocket, so i will not put it on, but i do have it here. we thought it would be appropriate to recommend allowing this use where it is most consistent with existing zoning. as you remember, you recently considered an ordinance that would create new named neighborhood commercial districts in the sunset. specifically so that these districts could be amended to better serve the needs of the people who live in for this reason we recommend changing the new n.c.d.'s so that car washes are permitted in conjunction with the service station through a conditional use authorization. so that would be our recommendation. the basis for that real estate is we generally feel car washes are not appropriate for residential districts or smaller n.c. districts, allowing car washes here could negatively impact the quality of life for adjacent neighbors by bringing additional congestion, noise and fumes. but because we recognize there are no commercial areas along 19th avenue that currently allows car washes, we'd recommend the change to those n.c.'s that just would affect this area. the department recognizes that service stations in residential districts may not be compatible with housing but do contribute to livability by providing a service that's essential to many san franciscoians. the proposal ordinance attempts to address noise and traffic effects that may be caused when this new use is introduced. noise and exhaust from increased traffic and potential pedestrian car conflicts are to be taken into account. establishing a car wash does not meet our threshold as far as ceqa is concerned for required traffic studies. we were a little bit hesitant on that criteria and we were worried it might create a precedence where any potentially nauseous use would have to be to do this traffic study and might set a precedent for proposals we don't think is appropriate. therefore, we'd recommend that condition be removed but rather through your conditional use authorization you'd look at each case by case and make a determination at that time if additional analysis were needed. so that concludes the department recommendation for this plan. i'd like to introduce dominica henderson from professor olague 's office. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is dominica and i work for supervisor olague. i'm here today to just let you know supervisor olague introduced this item, this ordinance when in fact 19th avenue was in district five but due to restricting it currently is in district four and supervisor elsbern's district as well but she's still very supportive of this ordinance because as -- when with -- when it was when we introduced it, the car washes that are in this area of the city are very limited, so she just wants to open up the opportunity for existing gas stations, not new gas stations, to have the ability to provide the service through a conditional use. and so she was very careful to ensure that there are certain square footages that were included in this ordinance that were required as well as other limitations on noise, traffic, etc. we are requesting that you support this legislation today in the form that it was presented because with the modifications that are suggested by the staff, they don't allow to the -- for the -- all four of the -- or the existing gas stations to pursue this as an option. and we are really respectful and understanding of the community process and i think that's why supervisor olague hopes that all of the legislation in its current form is approved by the commission and certainly by the board so the community can be able to come out and express their concerns and reservations or their support for these type of projects. so we have been working very closely with supervisor chu and supervisor elsbern's offices to ensure this is something not negatively impacting the community and we also have heard concerns from the neighbors around and would hope during conditional use processes those concerns can be vetted even more with the station operators so we're hopeful you'll approve it today in the form that it was presented to the board. thank you. >> thank you, ms. henderson. >> good afternoon, katie tang on behalf of carmen chu and would like to reiterate the legislation in its current form. a year ago we were approached by project sponsors who wanted to install a car wash at a gas station. at that time under current processes there's no public output required and no notification. we wanted them to work with the association and neighborhood organizations and they did hear a number of concerns rising out of their proposal. however, we feel that this legislation in its current form is not indicative of whether we're supportive of car washes, it's giving the neighbors and opportunity to actually weigh in sand aye through a conditional use process whether they'd like to see a car wash snule at potentially four sites. it does make it any more lenient and we feel the parameters set in the legislation limit it to four sites that could have car washes but again we feel very strongly about even providing neighbors and merchants the ability first of all to be notified there might be a car wash coming in and second of all to give their opinion whether they feel it's appropriate for the neighborhood. again, we'd really like to encourage the planning commission to support the legislation in its ornl form. vice president wu: thank you. is there any president comment on this ilte? -- item? seeing none, commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: following some of commissioner antonini's original remarks early in this session, i'm not sure everyone realizes how 19th avenue came to be in its current form. if you go prior to world war ii 19th avenue was a slightly wider street from the sunset north to south going out of golden gate park and south because that was basically what was el camino rial. so when my family took a ride on sunday down south we took 19th avenue and arrive lived in richmond and went through the park. prior to world war two they wanted to create a highway in part of that was the department of defense and whatever it was called at that time because everyone had an idea that something was brewing that would have a need particularly out of the presidio in order to create a transportation link. and they moved homes back along 19th avenue and the sun set to widen it, believe it or not, in the sand dune there is and that's what created it. originally there was a plan to tunnel under golden gate park but no one had the money for it during the depression. so what you have there is not a city street, basically it's highway 1. and you have it intersecting a number of neighborhood commercial districts as it goes along. the idea seems obvious to put a car wash not as a stand alone, but with the service station. you get the discounts on your gas quite often and naturally, and it's both generates automobile traffic and can be looked at in the same manner. one management firm -- and it's just a logical situation to handle. and the sunset and parkside do not have car washes in general anyway. it's a perfect example of what a conditional use should do. and the addition in the supervisor's legislation, and thank you, dominica and katie for your presentations, in the supervisor's recommendation that there be a traffic study. i understand the department's concept that, you know, loud, obnoxious, noisy, that type of thing. to me, in my mind, this is a very specific auto-related situation, and not anything else would fall into those general categories, so i don't think it's opening up a can of worms on this one. it may not be in neighborhood commercial districts but it's at them even though they may not include the particular corner of the four locations, although in a way i think they do. and i like the original legislation, and i like the way it's written, and i would recommend that we make -- excuse me, i would move that we recommend to the board of supervisors our endorsement of the legislation in its original form. >> second. [laughter] vice president wu: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i wash my car by hand. [laughter] commissioner sugaya: to staff, automobile washing and drying occurs entirely within an enclosed building. the ends are open, right? we're not saying it's going to be closed. i mean, you've got -- all car washes i've been to, you go in one and comes out -- >> that's a good question, a walled building, but you would be able to drive a car in and out. commissioner sugaya: that might need a little definition on that. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya: how loud is 65 dress bells? >> that's a good question. i could google that. they have a lot of aequivalencies. commissioner sugaya: we considered a c.u. for a car wash in mission around south van ness around there and i think there was a lot of concern about noise. >> this current -- the threshold that was set there is the current threshold for the noise ordinance in the city, so we were just going with they need to respect the noise