can happen. the the next question it is a question to the director. they passed a budget last night, very late, but there is an indication that it might have an effect on the continuance of redevelopment as we know it. as the details become more affable, i asked if he could please keep us updated -- as the details become more available, i ask that you please keep us updated with the changes mean for you and for us. president olague: we have raised this question before, the topic of tourism. can we think about tentatively scheduling a time in september to do a presentation on that issue? i know that commissioner fong and others have raised it in the

past? maybe late september? i think that would give us time to prepare. >> i had an initial conversation with the director, but i am happy to talk to him and schedule a time with him in the coming weeks. they have done some very good work, as commissioner fong has indicated. president olague: great, we have been talking about over- saturation of alcohol and other items. we may want to revisit that on some levels. that some point. -- at some point. secretary avery: commissioners, if there are no further comments, we can move on to the director's announcements. this is a review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> we're having a series of four

public workshops related to the early stages of the central corridor plan, which is the fourth street corridor plan that we have talked to you about. there are four community meetings in a row, june 22, 23, 24, and 25 at the eugene coleman committee house, on howard street between fourth and fifth avenues. -- at the eugene coleman community house on howard street between fourth and fifth avenues. we're looking at the direction that plan could go and how we can proceed in the coming months. second, there is a glen park community plan on june 22. this is the latest meeting regarding the glen park plan, 6:30 until 8:30 at st. john's

elementary school on the evening of june 22. ilast, i just wanted to give you the highlights. there was a memo regarding the budget in your packet. i had asked tom to prepare this, just to let you know that the budget that you approved, after it left the mayor's office, there were some changes to that, which typically happens every year, of course, and in this case what has happened is there were additions made to the budget, general fund allocations. that is a little unusual. but specifically, the mayor's office at it -- again, this is not approved yet, but this is sent to the board, the was funding at it related to the america's caught, for both the staffing work -- for the america's cup for the staffing work, for the master plan, the first year of work on that plan, which will cover the staff

costs, and the first environmental review. this covers the first year working on that environmental review. the changes also reflect changes in state grants that we received. we received, i think after you approve the budget, we received $400,000 grant from ftc related to the central project corridor. president olague: oh, great. >> it is helpful because it is very difficult to get grants for environmental review work, and this is one of the few sources for that. we are decided. we are excited to get that. and, let's see, those are some of the highlights. i think that is it. there are some fairly small changes that are also outlined

in the memo that time draft it. just to let you know, the budget hearing 4. the department at the board of supervisors is scheduled monday morning. we are reviewing recommendations from the budget analysts right now and we will have some preliminary response to that monday morning. and that is it for me, unless there are any questions. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: in regards to the fourth street plan and the easter neighborhood, that has not been rezoned pending this. -- and the eastern neighborhood, that has not been rezoned. a few have any time frame? >> we would like to get the plan, the concepts for the plan completed by the end of the year. we would have alternatives by the end of the year. that would allow us to start the eir early next year. and hopefully the eir will not

take more than 18 months or so, which is typically how long they take. commissioner antonini: right, thank you for your comments on that. >> sure. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to get your your weekly report on the board of supervisors' committee. they heard ordinance is related to executive park, the general plan that would enable a mixed used development in an area that had been previously zone for suburban-style offices and hotels. you heard this item a. five. at that time he recommended approval with a modification that would enable the relocation of one hour on block towards the east. the addendum to the eir was completed to make sure that new -- that no new impact was created. the committee considered these actions including the relocation of the tower, and they need it to continue it because there

were amendments to be heard again the following week. also before the land use committee was miscellaneous planning code amendments. this is something that you acted on on august 5 of last year. it is technical modifications to the planning code. originally this legislation included preservation issues. at the request of your commission president and because of the ongoing dialogue between your commission and hpc, we removed all of the proposed amendments to historic resources so it is not a historic resources. this week, the committee recommended approval to the full board. the land use committee also had a required hearing on the interagency plan and implementation committee. it is an annual report. i believe you had this report last month and a related item later today. it is purely informational, so the committee took no action. at the full board tuesday, the

housing element was before them. the board had already heard the appeal of the eir and upheld the eir ceqa document without public comment or board debate. the housing element was also approved with the 8-3 vote. the western sonoma community stabilization policy, urgent resolution sponsored by supervisor kim, that what urge this commission to incorporate policies and objectives from the stabilization policy into the western sonoma community plan when that item comes before you. the stabilization policy development developed by the task force would establish a metering of development, with the goal of achieving the desired balance of affordable housing and market. housing as well as an overall balance between housing. but the full board hearing, supervisor came introduced changes to the resolution so it no longer urges the commission

to incorporate this stabilization policy -- supervisor kim introduced the changes, and asked them to incorporate the policies in the plan to ensure this balance happens. with those amendments, the board approved the resolution. also before the full board or the parking amendments to sonoma. the planning commission considered this ordinance on apple 28. it is sponsored but -- on april 28. it was sponsored by supervisor kim. you voted approval with four modifications, and last week they incorporate your recommended modifications, including updating the ordinance with the last six months of ordinances that have been passed. and removing all the controls related to mission bay. this week, the board approved it as amended. 800 presidio was scheduled for ceqa appeal, and next tuesday

the board plans of holding the hearing for the ceqa appeal and the conditional use appealed and related authorizations. new introductions. there are three new ordinance is related to our work that i would like to share with you. supervisor mar introduced an ordinance that would make four changes to the planning code. it would allow eating and drinking allowed it in the neighborhood commercial districts, but only were the total street frontage is less than 30% in the event the concentration of these restaurants is greater than 30%, conditional use authorization would be required. that was the first change. the second change was recommending to remove the prohibition on large fast-food restaurants in this area. and to add a prohibition on formula retail. the third change is the

ordinance would make the principal use on the ground floor. the fourth change was a five- foot increase on the ground floor for the 40- and 50-foot height district's one active uses on the ground floor. this is a modification to the ordinance that supervisor maer had previously introduced. this will be scheduled tentatively for july 14 on your schedule. supervisor: introduced an amendment to provide for a process of the reconstruction of the building damages destroyed by fire, or acts of god, retroactive to august, 2009, that was proposed by supervisor cohen. and several supervisors introduced an ordinance related to the project under review by the department at scott and

lombard streets. this would create an affordable housing special use district at 3151 scott street to facilitate the development of an affordable housing -- affordable group housing project. this project and the accompanying legislation are tentatively scheduled to be heard by you on july 14 as well. that concludes my report, unless there are any questions. president olague: there are a couple. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: well, i have a lot of questions. the first is clarification of this suggested eating and drinking when the street frontage is less than 30% and total. i don't understand that exactly. is it principally permitted if they are shallow or buildings, shallow water along the street? >> -- shallower along the street?

>> we have not reviewed it yet, but it seems it would be linear street frontage. commissioner antonini: it seems a little strange. on the legislation proposed by supervisor cohen, could you repeat that? >> it would allow a process for rebuilding buildings damaged by fire or acts of god. commissioner antonini: i am sure that option is out there now, if the project sponsor or the owner chooses to do that. >> commissioner, this is a slight modification to the requirements in the code. it is a minor modification. commissioner antonini: okay. and the final is the special use district for the edward the second. i am kind of surprised the supervisors -- it seems it would go through the planning process before the special use district is established. >> no, typically we need to have

an ordinance for the special use district. can either be initiated by the planning commission or the project sponsor can bring it before you are to be introduced by the board. in any way, it needs to happen before the consider project approval. so we do need that ordinance, and it usually happens before the hearing. commissioner antonini: okay, but theoretically we could have initiated that as part of our process if it was felt to be beneficial. >> right, and then there is a noticing requirement. we need a window of about 30 days because of the noticing requirement. commissioner antonini: i know this happens a lot, but sometimes it seems as though the commission should be first to weigh in on the desirability of a project, or it could be proposed or asked if we could do it before it being done before we have the chance to look at it. president olague: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: thank you. is it possible you could send us

the draft language for the climate street item, as well as the store frontage? >> yes, i can send that to you. commissioner fong: if it all lists anything in advance, it may be helpful. >> sure. commissioner moore: in any of these cases, i am sure the planning department will take a close look at these and provide the look of context, exceptions, which you kind of want to avoid so we are approaching this with as broad information gathering as weekend. i am not opposed to was getting challenges around this, but in the and we cannot further confuse or increase the amount of rules and regulations are we start to stumble on our own feet. i have a question regarding the executive report. the idea of moving the general building plan positive received?

>> the board discussed that amendment. i don't remember any ringing endorsements or concerns. they incorporated it into the legislation, so therefore i believe they support it, but they to not explicitly state anything about that. commissioner moore: i am glad that the environment the review allowed this to be something we could make, and i want to thank staff. i myself have been interested in moving the building. i think it is a better idea overall, and i know this commission when we all looked at it together supported it. >> there was a small but did them done to the environment for review after you looked at it, after you act it, so we could show there were not impacted by the movement of the tower. that did show that. commissioner moore: great. president olague: now the legislation, is it one block, or

separated? >> it is one ordinance that affects different areas, different controls affecting different places. president olague: i guess i would like to encourage someone from his office to come on the 14th. i am perplexed by the pet supply restrictions. so i would like some analysis. >> i will invite the board members or the offices to come to the hearing. we will let them know that there is a special request to have them at the hearing. president olague: now, who sponsored the legislation on scott street? >> supervisors davit choo, avalos, kim, mar, and mirkarimi. president olague: okay, thank you. commissioner sugaya?

commissioner sugaya: cookies? >> the board of appeals did not meet last week, but it will be back in action next week. secretary avery: commissioners, the historic preservation committee met yesterday. the two items of the interest, one was the landmark designation program, and the program that was proposed by staff. the commission adopted it, but there were two editions. the number of people came out in support of adding a pub on third street. there was a lot of history given, the first african american who ran for mayor in san francisco in 1964, and there is a lot of support for having this building added to the designated works program. also, the bookstore building on

fillmore street was added to the program. president olague: that is great. secretary avery: yes, there was a lot of support for both of those at the hearing. also, the showplace survey area, the commission took one property out of that, the cafe. they had the hearing basically on that item, and they actually took action saying that property did not meet the criteria to be included in the survey. the rest of the survey was continued until july 20. president olague: quick question, the owner of the bookstore, did they support that? secretary avery: yes. president olague: great. >> i met with that owner, as well as his daughter, at jordan's pulte, which has been

there since the 1950's, and both of those owners were requesting that we add them to the works program to landmark both properties. it was a very interesting discussion and we are happy to be involved with them. secretary avery: thank you. commissioners, if we can move forward on the calendar? we are not at general public comment. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public following the subject matter of jurisdiction of this commission, with the exception of agenda items which may only be addressed on the time when they are on the counter and not in this category. each member of the public may address you up to three minutes, keeping in mind the entire time frame for this category is 15 minutes. i do have one speaker card. president olague: helen?

>> hello. secretary avery: speak into the microphone. pull it down. >> ok. i am a single woman who has been a resident of san francisco for 33 years. i have owned a two unit building on a book street for 15 years. for my retirement i wanted to build a single-family home on this lot. a research has at shown that the city approves this type of project. my facilitator informed me that my project would be within the city guidelines for hate valley and products like this for approval. i am a county employee and have spent one year salary and now three years trying to get this project approved. i have complied with everything the planning department has required of me. there have been no complaints from my neighbors and the haight valley association supports the project.

i'm here to request the planning department provide an explanation report on why they now want me to reduce the height of my new building from t 39 to 32 feet after two years and complete revisions and have never mentioned the late in the recommended changes. i need this report because the planning department was asked why there was a change and refuse to give any explanation. let me give a little history of what i have gone through. it to the project approved in the city, i had to work with the planning department and my neighbors. the recommended to revisions and complied a they approved them. my understanding is once the revisions were approved the project would be approved. the last revision was approved february, 2011. may 12, there was a meeting with the planning department which i was led to believe was the final meeting and the project would be approved and construction permits would be forthcoming. to our shot, the person who had -- to our shock, a approved the

revisions and the height of the building should be reduced from 39 feet to 32 feet. please be advised that 39 feet is within the code and has never been an issue at any time. when asked why the substantial change, he refused to give an explanation. this puts me back at square one. it does not make sense to me that the planning department will not give me an explanation. why are they not willing to work with me on the design and height, that i can appeal and i have party spent three years wages. i am not a rich person and i did not want the appeal costs of $4,000. if i do appeal, i pay for a new architect. i have already paid $20,000 for the original plan. if the project is dead, i twisted a year's wages. i think now you can understand why the report by the planning department is justified. please ask them to advise me what have made a special change. president olague: thank you. kathleen?

>> president and commissioners, a stand here to make a note that this afternoon, there is a memorial service for dr. frank henman. he and his wife were the founders of the russian improvement association almost 50 years ago. he had a profound desire to protect housing, particularly in russian hill, and in the city as a whole, and he and his wife were strong advocates in defense of housing. he was the one that led the fight after the building of the fund and apartment buildings to put a 40-foot height limit in russian hill -- after the fontana apartment buildings. the planning code was changed to accommodate that request and lobbying. i think it is worthwhile to acknowledge today that i guess we stand on the shoulders of giants, and he made a

substantial commitment and contribution to our community. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public, disclosed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: although we do not comment on this, if we could get some answers about books street from the staff? -- if we could get some answers about what is going on with oaks street from the staff? secretary avery: thank you. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. this is on agenda items that have already been reviewed and the public hearing has been closed. members of the public may address you at this time on those items. any member of the public may address you up to three minutes. the only item on the calendar that this category would pertain to would be item number 8.

that is the final certification of the final eir for the pier 36 brannan street project. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. you are now that consideration of findings and final action or the public hearing is closed. item eight is the only item in this category,e 2,009.0418, pier 36 brannan street project, certification of the final eir. >> good afternoon. i am with the planning department's staff. the item before you certification of the final environmental impact report eir for the proposed pier 36 prince street project. the copy of the draft eir certification motion is before you. the draft eir was published february 9, 2011. the public hearing on the draft eir was held march 24, 2011.

the project -- the public, timeframe closed march 28, and comments and responses document was closed on june 1, 2011. the planning department prepared the eir for this project because it has significant impact on the environment to the historic architectural resources and air quality. the commission will not be taking any action on this project, and this project would be before the port commission for subsequent project approval. the planning department request to adopt the motion before you, which certifies the content of the final eir are adequate and accurate and procedures to which the report was prepared comply with provisions of ceqa, the guidelines, and chapter 31 of the the ministry of code. this concludes my presentation on this matter. unless commissioners have any questions? president olague: thank you. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: we have a letter written by the historic

preservation commission dated march 23, 2011, regarding the draft eir. could you comment on your response? >> yes, you can see and the response to comment number 7 through 14, and then additionally in, it 21 through 22, they range from cultural resources and alternatives. i could go through every one of those, or if you have a specific one? commissioner moore: no, i just wanted to make sure that since this is an end historic district, it takes special knowledge to pick out the issues, that this has been done and a satisfactory way. president olague: commissioners? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i know

about five years ago we dealt with a project in this area that was never realized. i assume since this is a different project, in case the public has a different questions, we need a different environmental impact report is that. it was never finalized? >> yes, that was the project at pier 32. commissioner antonini: brannan street was part of that. that it was part of it, but it was only programmatic at that time. at that time, the ire was published in approximately 2002 -- the eir was published in approximately 2002 and was not identified as a store until approximately 2006 when the national registry district was about it -- it was not identified as historic until approximately 2006. commissioner antonini: thank you for the clarification. commissioner fong: i am familiar with this project and have been tracking at the last four years tracking at the last four years or so.