president fong: welcome to san francisco planning commission regular meeting for thursday june 28, 2012. please turn off all mobile devices. when speaking before the

commission, speak directly into the microphone and speaker your name for the record. at this time, i would like to call roll. [roll call] first on your calendar, commissioners, the consideration of those items for a continuance. minnie and lovie ward playfields renovation is continued until september 12 -- actually, september 20, 2012. item 2, for 2764 greenwich street, fifth proposed for continuance until september 20,

2012. also under the regular calendar, we received a request for item 11. mechanical car wash facilities -- this is continued until july 20, 2012. that is all i have. president fong: public comment on the items proposed for continuance? >> i'm an appellant regarding the minnie and lovie ward playfields. i have not been notified -- president fong: excuse me, sir. can you state your name. >> oh.

we supplied 50 pages of comments on this report. they included cancer findings from the world health organization and the international agency for research on cancer, among others. our comments pointed out lot of data as well as data gaps within the report. president fong: i'm sorry to interrupt you again. we are taking comments in regard to the continuance. >> i'm advocating for continuance, so. our comments pointed out data gaps and the report -- in the report. the report omitted the proximity of this project to an elementary school as well as the toxicity of the environment. we believe that in light of the

fact that no responsible report has yet been produced, that july 12 -- approximately two weeks from now -- is an insufficient amount of time to appropriately review the report. this two-week window could only exist if the report were produced to date. to release at a later report would only compound the insufficiency. the public should have 30 days after the report is released and made available to thoroughly review. president fong: thank you. any additional public comment? commissioner sugaya: i do not think there is a comments and responses documents with planning declarations. >> that is correct, commissioner. it is not an eir.

president fong: is there a motion? >> issue the continuous calendar to the date today. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion to continue -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously and puts you under your consent calendar. on matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll-call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items on as a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which even the matter shall be removed from the consent

calendar and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. the first item -- 2012.0041b de haro street. i have no speaker cards. commissioner miguel: i recused myself from this item. i live on the 600 block of de haro, but not far enough away that i am not under a financial obligation to do so. commissioner sugaya: i would like to hear this. >> would you like to hear it now? commissioner miguel: whenever. >> if staff is prepared.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you is a zoning authorization for 444 de haro street which is seeking to convert 90,000 square feet into office use. currently the building as 100,000 gross square feet, of which 24,000 square feet is dedicated to parking. the subject building will receive authorization for 49,000 square feet of office space. there are no alterations proposed under this application. the project sponsor has submitted a concerned maintenance plan. it would result in 140,000 of

gross square feet. the proposed project requires the use of planning code section 8 cents bid has been found it eligible for the california register. 220, the historic preservation commission review the proposed maintenance -- june 20, the historic preservation commission reviewed the proposed maintenance plan. step was received no public comment on the proposed project and recommends approval. thank you. president fong: is there any public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. john on behalf of the private sponsor. the building was built in 1920's

as an industrial building. it underwent renovation in 1984. it is currently being proposed to be completely converted to office use. there are no interior or exterior renovations proposed as part of the project. the current building owner has been a good steward of the building. it is in good condition. as part of the project approval, it also includes the mandated maintenance plan to ensure that the building will be kept in good condition into the future. i wanted to mention a couple other things. i wanted to mention that they could create a consistent use plan throughout the building, so the building could better serve the tenants, since they are all the same kind of tenants. and finally, it is an the close

-- it is in close vicinity to a number of transit options. if you have any questions, we are here to respond. thank you. president fong: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, a couple of questions for the project sponsor. is the square footage being proposed for conversion currently occupied? >> uh -- part of it is. most of it is not. the uses could be showrooms, pvr, water -- what ever else is allowed in the zone. commissioner sugaya: the space

that is the office space in the building right now -- >> in 1984, the mix of the building was office and showroom and circulation space. at this point, the tenants, i believe, are under that office space. commissioner sugaya: ok. and it is staff -- and to staff, in terms of non-office use, can you tell me what will be allowed on the ground floor? >> currently, with the rezoning, part of how they are able to do with the ground floor is a retail or other uses on the ground-floor level. >commissioner sugaya: i can

remember -- does it also allow for other regional type of ground-floor uses? >> yes. commissioner antonini: this seems like a good project to make. it has been pointed out, it only uses 90,000 square feet toward the office space that is available. is also mentioned that it was built by staff this use would help to enhance the ability to preserve the building, which is something we do want to preserve, because we have active rent in there and it would have acted uses, which it lacks now. the also mentioned in the report, although i'm not sure why the existing businesses in their our office-type businesses. so, there is a bland.

b-s that are not could stay, obviously. -- the ones that are not could stay, obviously. i moved to approve. >> i second that. commissioner moore: just one question. the public is always concerned with these office conversions. transit impact, the office fees. there is a sentence in the staff report following the table on page 3, which it says we would like to have an explanation from the director. "please note that these are subject to change after planning department approval." what does that mean? >> it relates to the annual update to the feed. the exact dollar amount might

increase depending on what the -- dbi-- the fees it raised annually. commissioner moore: ok it does not disappear? the public might read that and think "oh, there are some deals being made." commissioner miguel: the reason i seconded this is since i've lived in the vicinity, i am very happy to see this building renovated after 38 years. the only reliable space there for years was of betting the company that is no longer there and has not been for some time. the configuration of the building is not really conducive to a ground-floor retail. he would have to destroy a part of the historic fabric of the

building to even do that. so, judging from the uses and the general vicinity, i think this is an excellent situation. president fong: any further comments? commissioner sugaya: i am going to vote against the motion because i am trying to hold the line of pdr and other uses. >> we have a motion to approve with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. we are under commissioners' questions and matters. item four. commissioner antonini: thank you. an article in today's business section talk about the increase in housing prices in some cities

in the united states, and one of them was san francisco, which never had a huge fall in prices, but did have some areas that were challenged. there was conjecture in the article as to why this happened, and one thing that was mentioned was cities where a large number of upper income households with better incomes during the recovery. it mentioned that to under 11,400 professional service sector jobs were reported recently in san francisco, and that is an increase of 12,400 from last year. to give you a perspective on why this is importanct, downtown areas of lack of jobs to attract people. for example, i think san diego and charlotte -- the figures i

have show only 45,000 jobs in the downtown area. of jobs are not there, and they are sometimes attractive to people to live in downtown areas. they're facing a long commute in the same area. the jobs would have to come first. there is certainly nothing wrong when we are building housing to note that large number of -- numbers of housing -- the market rate housing is above the 20th percentile, because if someone buys them or rinse them and adds the tax revenue and moves to new citizens into san francisco to create jobs for our citizens and our work force here -- i think that is an important thing to

look at if we consider this. a lot of cities would love to have this problem. they have been trying to do some things in phoenix to create a downtown. even though they have a lot of projects there, the large concentration of residents in the downtown area, student housing connected with the branch of the university and other cities can attract detail -- cannot attract retail, even some of the glamorous city's. that people want to be here is very beneficial and we should keep that in mind as we talk about other subject later -- subjects later in our calendar. thank you. president fong: commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: yes, i had a few meetings this week on items on today's calendar. 1 regarded the project at parcel t, the old central freeway

parcels. natoma and 14th. i went to a meeting with the mta. this one was out in richmond. in my mind, it was a lot of fluff with no new information. and of course, no estimation whatsoever as to when and if that would come to pass. it was the same solution for the presidio intersection and fell more intersection -- fillmore intersection. so. one very interesting meeting was the civic design review. we have seen that in the paper this week, the design for the new control tower.

it's interesting, because you could really call it a begin. was even more interesting was the information from the faa who could deal with the top of it. not just the staffing. they designed the top and they tell the architects to figure out some way to get it up there. the angles, the sidelines to where they have to go. the tilt of its. -- the tilt of it. it is a very interesting experience for me. and of course, taking a look at

the rest of it, which, truthfully, i think we will have a major piece of architecture sitting out there. it is very interesting. a very tight geographic relationship between terminals 1 and two. they had one of where the people had not been through security. where it -- one where they had. keep them separated. i think once it is going, you will be very pleased with it. president fong: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, mr. rich being you're reminded me. at some point can we get a status on cpmc? president fong: commissioner antonini?

commissioner antonini: i should mention that i have had meetings with products or unsers ofp outarcel c, natoma, larkin, 1490 francisco, which is also on our calendar today. >> commissioners, we are on item five, director's announcements. >> just two things. we would like to schedule -- in light of the hearing last week, i think we would like to schedule some more detailed briefings on the background information on the plan. we are happy to do that in public hearings or individually with you as well to talk about that. the second thing, with respect to our budget, the committee met to approve our budget this

week. there are still some points of agreements, if you will. they have chosen to wait until this afternoon when they will be voting on the entire budget, our department budget. the issue is a couple of positions and whether they should move forward or not. i will say, in spite of that come up most of the changes to our budget were accepted by the committee. so, we are having discussions with members of that committee all week long. that concludes my presentation. i will note for the record that the board of appeals did not meet. >> item 6, review of the the past week's items with the board of supervisors. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the bulk of my presentation is about the cpmc hearings.

on monday, they continued with the hearings begin monday was focused on the health care provisions. president chiu and supervisor campeau'os joined the meetings. informed the public that one of the key development notions in the agreement was being renegotiated. this meant the previous commitments were no loggers satisfied, because the provision deals with the metrics that would be used that will allow acpmc to close st. louis -- st. luke's as soon as possible. there was a metric that would allow cpmc to close st. luke's if the whole system more in dire

straits. the cpmc would have to be operating below 01% margin for two years. this margin seemed significantly low for productions at the time. based on input from an independent third-party, the 1% operating margin was highly unlikely. however, based on new projections about resident, -- residents, cpmc is lower than previously reported, although not quite at the 1% threshold. the city was to make sure that it is one that is unlikely to be

met because the continued operation of st. luke's is one of the most important provisions in the amendment. the goal had been to come to monday's hearing with a solution in hand, not just a problem. although this did not happen, staff is helpful to have a new solution to the provision soon, understanding the development agreement would not move forward until there's a solution to this provision. president chiu and supervisor campos regretted that they had not been informed as soon as city staff knew about this change. they acknowledged the agreement would not go forward without insuring st. luke's operation. the next hearing is scheduled for july 9 and that is focused

on transportation in the public realm. all reports have been done by the budget analyst and the comptroller's office. we do have a pending environmental appeal. currently on july 17, the board is scheduled to hear the seir. that was the main action this week at the board. that leaves us with eight planning appeals pending for the board of supervisors. a very high number. they are expected to be heard in july. 5 new introductions. there were three pieces of legislation related to the housing trust fund i would like to share with you. the housing trust fund involves

the charter amendment and the production of affordable housing, increasing moderate income housing, and stimulating the market rate housing production. it is a charter amendment that will go to the borders -- to the voters. the charter amendment is sponsored by the mayor, supervisors wiener, olague, and mar. and finally, this will not be scheduled before you unless you request. an amendment to the san francisco environment code to include new fountain so they may allow all people to fill their water bottles. we plan on doing that, but he would not be hearing it