this was for wireless internet, actually nine of them. two people had opposition, but it was approved unanimously. it was a different story this week at the board with a two- hour hearing or the majority of the comments were in opposition to the antennas. a written argument was not cemented, but they completed a survey in presented that to the board on thursday right before the hearing. at the hearing, the board questioned the staff about what sort of analysis was conducted, either by us or by the commission, to document in verify the materials submitted by verizon, as far as their ability to receive cell phone calls in that area. >> who asked that question? >> supervisor mar. staff responded that the commission is an appointed body that, much like the board, is not a technical expert in marcellus antennas. instead, the commission the same sort of review of submitted

materials that the board of supervisors is that they're hearing, weighing evidence presented before it and then using their discretion to decide the matter. in this case of your decision to approve the wireless antennas was based in part because it was a preference one location, or the highest priority for these antennas in the city. supervisor cohen if there is any action the supervisors could take in the future if they did not like the existing locations of the antennas to the staff advised the board that the wireless citing guidelines is in the document that was developed through interactions with the board of supervisors, which resolutions and in response to how they settle appeals. and the board could suggest a further refinement of the guidelines through a resolution or they could codify the guidelines in the planning code if they wish, and you might appreciate that as a commission

because it is very controversial here. the hearing ended with a request to continue the item from the district supervisor. he stated he would accept an offer that verizon, the project sponsor, may. they said that would make all their proprietary data on cell coverage and capacity to a neutral third-party engineering firm to analyze and weigh in on their data. this party would analyze the data for the appellate and the board, and the board closed the hearing and voted to continue the item. so we will be back later for decision. there were no new ordinances pertaining to land use introduced this week. commissioner olague: thank you. >> [inaudible] commissioner olague: and historic preservation did not meet this week. thank you, commissioners. with that, we can move on to your 15-minute general public

comment category. members of public may address you on items of interest to the public that fits within the jurisdiction of this commission. each person may address you for three minutes. they may not address you on any item on the calendar today, and the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. dan liebertson and linda chapman. >> before i start, i would like to get this letter to the secretary to distribute to all when i finish, so that is not forgotten. thank you. good afternoon. i am dan liebertson, including

670 members of the park club. i am here to ask you to reconsider your decision to change the design of the planned cvs store in -- in the portola drive neighborhood commercial districts. you heard this application in april and approved with the condition that the art deco design be modernized. yeah, this design was developed by the original sponsor, based on participation of our organization, residence, and community architects. when cvs to cover the project from walgreen's, they assured us that would use the original design, which was constant with the architectural character is of the ncd's and mira loma park, including tower market and many homes. in addition to modernize the design, it was imposed without study of the special architectural character of this

2500-home neighborhood. our representative at the hearing was assured by the planner that the design changes would be minimal. therefore we made no appeal in april, assuming the planners would observe the administrative code requirement that formula retail and ncd be compatible with existing architecture. then we were presented with a new completely different design purged of all art deco alamance, a very big box 13 design that we in the last week and the project sponsors tried to avoid. located at a major never gave way, this new design what betray our most characteristic and distinctive architecture. we wrote requesting reinstatement of the original design but received no response. mr. crawford said the new design was adopted without further community input or hearings. this decision and our exclusion from the process of development and adoption of the new design

run counter to a 20-year tradition of collaboration between the department, commission, and neighborhood organizations. this tradition has yielded mira loma parks residential design guidelines, developed with department cooperation and adopted by the commission in 1999, and has also resulted in the avoidance or settlements of many dvr request. the board has volunteered countless hours to assisting planning staff and the commission. in our view, our continued involvement with the process would have served the best interests of all. we urge you to repair this damage to what was a model of collaboration between community, business, the planning department, and the commission. [bell rings] and to adhere to the administrative code, reinstate the original community-supported if assad design. we appreciate your consideration and reply to our request. thank you. commissioner olague: thank you.

>> and linda chapman. i wanted to speak further about the subject of people negotiating a conditional use conditions and saying that the represent the community and that not being taken very seriously. i brought up the subject of nob hill senior housing last time and the in lieu fees over $5 million that could have been directed there, and they can be directed to a particular project. it was mentioned that there was some doubt that there could be. but quite a while ago i discussed with -- with this with calvin welsh and the person in housing, and i think i originally consulted them. this was the second time that that happened, you know, right in the nob hill area without the knowledge -- i mean, it is find to come in and say we represent the neighborhood association. but what about the people who actually live in the community

or even members of the neighborhood association who know nothing about the fact that this is happening? i was asked to write a synopsis for the mayor's office about the project, the little church, for example. i was asked by one of the officers of that organization to include the fact that 150 neighbors had signed petitions and other requests to have reuse of that. here was a source of funding, for example. this was the second time that that happened in that neighborhood, where money that could have been directed right there was not directed there. i brought the letter that steve tabor wrote you last week that was too late to bring in, senior member of the nob hill housing. it says, in agreement with your position that providing 15 affordable, a milk -- condominium and instead of and in lieu fee is not an efficient or effective way to provide affordable housing. he gives three reasons. one is the one that i tell thee,

that it will be divided project and people will be outvoted. those 15 will be outvoted by the people who have a different agenda and different interests. and two technical things that relate to funding. to it being an ineffective way to bring in subsidies, and they will be building to higher standards than it would be built somewhere else. so it is like the leveraging the money. also, he concluded, there is an argument that could be made that on-site housing would help integrate income groups, but that in lieu fee in the same neighborhood would have that effect, you know, while providing affordable housing. [bell rings] that the developer said that he could do the project, and it was 15 units, after all. or i could put the $5 million in something else or i could do this. you know, without any public discussion, any votes, any -- of

two organizations, i asked neighbors when i was told that we negotiated this -- [bell rings] commissioner olague: thank you. is there any additional general public comment? seeing them, a general public, disclosed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: am i to understand that the design was substantially changed after our approval? maybe staff can look into that. >> i personally do not know. we will look into that. i do recall that you had asked the design be changed from it you had seen to a more contemporary design. how much it changed after that, i do not know. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would also like to hear more about that item. i remember the discussion, and if there is a significant change, i would like to know that. banks. commissioner olague: my sense from the speaker is that it is

not what happened afterwards, but it is what happened at the commission hearing. that there were changes made -- did i hear you correctly, sir? and we should not be discussing this. did you hear that there were design changes? >> quickly, the original design that was approved two years ago was an art deco design. commissioner olague: ok. >> after hearing the commission requested that it be "modernized" that was condition for approval of the project. commissioner olague: right. >> it was not to modernize. it was completely wiped clean of any art deco. commissioner olague: i thought that is what i heard. it is a combination of both. definitely the commission decided something. we would all appreciate something. >> thank you, commissioners. we can move forward on your calendar to item number nine,

the first item on your regular calendar. case number 2006.085tm. japantown community planning process and a national -- and initial recommendations. >> get afternoon. my name is paul lord from the department of staff. before i get started, i would like to apologize to the commissioners, because, for the first time since perhaps 1977, i have got speaking notes in front of me. typically i am familiar enough with projects that i can address you directly and maintain eye contact to see how you're responding to various points that i may. it has not been since 1977 when they presented the 16th street revitalization plan and wrote my notes out in ink and was so nervous presenting to you that my perspiration bled all my notes and i cannot read them anyway.

so i am back to notes again, and i hope this is not a sign of things to come for me. but nonetheless, i am happy to be here today. it has been a very rich experience working in japantown since assigned. but to refresh your memory is, there was the publication of a better neighborhoods draft plan in 2009. could that was presented to this commission at which time the community came before you and asked for more time for a thorough review, and bringing back to your recommendations for how that plan could be modified to better meet the long standing needs in japantown, as well as the future needs for that community in terms of its vitality. and its social heritage. you granted that request and asked the community to begin that review process in late 2009.

the committees that were formed in the community broke the document into chapters and began to review those chapters in public meetings that were pretty broadly advertised with in the community and discussed by a fairly large group of community members and participants. by 2011 -- or the late 2010 in august, planning staff was assigned back to this project to help guide it this review process and provide technical assistance in the ongoing deliberations in the community about how the plan could be modified to better meet their needs. i was it that selected staff. and i have been working with them ever since. one of the first things that we did was to have the request and -- at the request an invitation

of supervisor mirkarimi, form a decision making body called the japantown organizing committee. i do not know exactly the number seated now, but it was well over 20 people come summer between 20 and 30 people that responded to supervisor mirkarimi's invitation to participate as the decision making body and to hear the recommendations coming out of the committee reviews of the plan itself. the planning department joined in to that process and provided technical planning support and assistance. the organizing committee and the planning staff collaborated in developing a community engagement strategy that would actually evaluate, validate, and enhance or modified the committee recommendations as they were being presented to the broader community. that effort was largely undertaken by the committees and

by the community. there was an exploration of an idea of a community land trust. there was one particular element in the better neighborhoods planned -- i think one sentence that said explore a committee land trust idea. and that was seized on by earlier work that had been done by the id to give director -- by the executive director, paul psaki, who had written papers on community land trust. we began to explore that as part of this ongoing process. we did that with the help of many people. first and foremost, we began with some assistance from san francisco state. i got a group of san francisco state students in to look at community land trust ideas. one of those students as stayed on to continue work in the community. she is in the audience today. we also were recipients of a

$30,000 grant through the ford foundation to acquire burlington and associates as one of the leading experts nationwide on community land trust, to evaluate this idea of enhancing local ownership opportunities or exploring this particular avenue and possible changes in global ownership of some of these strategic properties in japantown. we were also the beneficiaries of -- we got a $50,000 add- back funding provided by supervisor mirkarimi, who has been incredibly supportive of that this process the entire time. we engaged the services of cycle consulting to look at the economic feasibility of a community land trust. so burlington and associates was hired to look at the government -- governance issues and explore the idea of what would be perhaps the first time in the country commercial community

land trust. as many of you know, this has been done for affordable housing projects and open space projects but never for a major set of commercial properties. they also formed a clt advisory body to help guide the consultants. that was composed of merchants and other well-informed people on this subject from the japantown community. out of this process going on, we also strategizing with the organizing committee about how to create a valid planning process that would actually have them be able to come to you, as they are ready to do today, and say that we went through a public process that was both transparent and inclusive and open to the public in all respects. so what we did is we were fortunate again to receive a grant from the friends of city planning to help finance some of the costs associated with what

eventually became four committee meetings running from june until a september 10. the first three meetings were to share ideas with the community, that the committee review of the better neighborhood plan. they were sharing those ideas, but there were also seeking input from the community as to how those recommendations could be modified or made stronger, better, somehow more appropriate in some fashion. in the course of that process, i was fortunate enough to have the initiative of than intern by the name of maria lee, who is in the house -- audience, to help with the logistics of pulling those meetings together. food, name tags, all those sorts of things, she was a major help with. again, we got the funding for much of the underwriting of

these meetings from friends of city planning. one of the things that that grant helped us to provide was independent professional facilitation for these meetings. it was done by the community outreach program. not only did the community outreach program provide independent this occasion for these meetings, they also helped to design the meetings themselves so that they ensure the greatest level of public engagement possible, given the short time that we can actually ask the committee to participate in those meetings. so there were broken in to break out groups, and there were over of presentations and summaries, exit interviews were done. i know the commission has been looking at meaningful ways of public engagement. we had a presentation not long ago from staff about the ongoing research the department is doing on public engagement. i wanted to share that idea and how we went through that process in japantown as a result of the committee's review of the better

neighborhoods plan. the organizing committee is set up to ratify or men committee recommendations. so each of the committees, when they have a recommendation, but the organizing committee seeking their ratification of that or modification. when it came to planning staff technical assistance, i do not know what it is about me or the department -- i know the department has a very high standing in the minds of many young people going through school, studying these programs. but i seem particularly blessed with the sort of interns that my projects seem to attract. for doing things like updating retail sales information since 2008, which 2007 was the last date in which the japantown neighborhoods plan, was fortunate enough to have an

intern that was finishing up her master's at pratt, come in and update the sales information at the request of the community. i was also fortunate enough to find and in turn by the name of jonathan yee. this was through a round of golf was playing monday. i met his father, and he said his son was interested in an internship. and jonathan, who graduated from the program at berkeley, came over and help us develop an existing build out analysis of the existing zoning in japantown and has rejoined me now after having a brief paying jobs over the summer. we then started to work and something called the japantown design standards that were based, in part, on existing city design standards, better streets program ideas, as well as little tokyo's design standards from los angeles. but jonathan and maria, who i mentioned earlier, were instrumental in helping to pull

together the initial draft of that document. we have also been working very closely with the neighborhood on developing some revised neighborhood commercial district controls. currently, there is an nc2 district that runs on the north side of posed street and buchanan streets. there is the nc3 district between fillmore and laguna. that is an nc3 district. we have explored and gone through a very extensive process of evaluating both the applicability of the nc2 and nc3 districts and merging those into a possible named japantown neighborhood commercial district. from staff, we provided assistance in looking at density analysis, and we provided, with the help of johnny and jonathan, some exercises looking at typical sights to see what sort of density changes we can make

in the area to help address the long standing needs the city has for growth, especially along a transit preferential street in the geary brt. we also began working, again with staff, shelley and michael and johnny were very instrumental in some of the very initial stages of taking social heritage resources the committee had identified and mapping those resources, and we continue that process with the cultural heritage committee, hoping to refine that list of resources and how they should be mapped. also, i was happy to get help from one of the -- a young woman who is now in law school in san diego by the name of jennifer lie. and jessica avila, a san francisco state senior. and a young man you will hear later from, who has helped me to

start to look at the rooftops for the malls. we have almost three city blocks the rooftops. and without height change and without significant work done on the subterranean garage is that support the malls, we're probably looking at building form for many years to come. and we were thinking that black rooftops were not the best use of that rooftop area. so we have begun to explore a variety of sustainable treatments, from rainwater harvesting to solar to a variety of treatments that could be used up their, even possibly urban agriculture to grow something's that japantown restaurants could use, in a wide variety of ways, looking at how those three city blocks that are currently black rooftop could be used to help sustain and rebranded the mall's if we go through a process of acquisition and remodeling for the malls.

finally, the technical assistance went into some of shadow analysis, because in the heart of japantown at the end of becky -- buchanan street is peace plaza. that is the rec and park property which is subject to prop k, and future building analysis has to take into consideration new shadows into the public open space. with the help of staff, we helped to begin some preliminary shadow analysis, possible minor height increases along opposed and buchanan street in our study. finally, i want to thank j uaquin for neighborhood services. there has been one meeting -- one and a half meetings, i will say, of what is called a city

family working group that has oewd, the mayor's office of neighborhood services, and other important players in the city family to consider some of the proposals, whether it be local ownership, business enhancements, and things of this nature is to try and get some sort of -- i do not know, critical mass around those ideas to actually move those forward. and it was really through the help and initiative of him that we got that john started. i wanted to thank him abbottabad gives you a sense of some of the technical assistance we have provided. the next two speakers that i want to introduce our karen, who has been at the chair of the land use and build forum committee, and bob, who will speak consecutively to you on aspects and recommendations that these committees have come up with an vetted through their organizing committee and through this extensive community

planning process, and they are here now to share those ideas with you. when they are finished, i would like to come back and share some ideas related to next steps that we could possibly take in this planning process. so thank you very much. i would like to introduce karen is now, the chair of the land use and build forum committee in japantown. > thank you, commissioners. i am a member of the japantown organizing committee and co- chair of the land use in bill form subcommittee. at the very top of my remarks, i really want to give thanks to paul lord. he has been an extraordinary asset to our planning process.

he is help desk to obtain resources. he is very, very useful in helping us navigate the planning details that we're going through. we also wanted to acknowledge all of the resources that he has mentioned. it is amazing how much he has pulled in in terms of wonderful people who have really contributed tremendous products that have been at the basis for the work we have been doing. being here today to set met our recommendations is a milestone for us. but it is definitely not the end of the road, and we're very aware of that. we're continuing to work with our planning staff and the resources he has brought in. we're working on various things that will continue as staff works on developing the