commission used to be. >> it is a city or state agency i guess within the city i think technically. maybe that is -- >> essentially, that is right. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> does this pose for this particular city was probably one of the most physically active in the state of california. physical building, any problems as you see it? i find it unusual you would not be asked to be on the physical end but rather the financial end. that is a tough call. >> commissioners, director ram, we are in a discussion of this. of course it is not on your calendar. if it is your desire to discuss this, and this is a subject i would recommend you discuss, maybe we should calendar this for next week, for discussion next week. >> we have a memo coming. the question is whether you want to actually calendar it. >> when does the memo come out? >> you will get it today. >> is there interest for

that? >> yes, there is. >> let's calendar an item for this particular topic. >> okay. thank you. >> ms. rogers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anne rogers, planning department staff here for your weekly update on the board of supervisors planning activities. starting with monday land use committe, they heard the update to the community safety element. this is a piece of our city's general plan. the commission recommended approval june 14th. while there had not been any opposition of the update up until monday, there were two speakers in opposition at the board hearing citing sea level rise. after public comment the board committee did recommend approval of this ordinance to the full board. they also heard an ordinance sponsored by mayor. board president chu and supervisors kim and wiener. this would change the threshold for the

inclusional affordable housing programs, moving from five or more units back to ten or more . this is the companion ordinance to the housing trust fund and would only become effective if the voters approved the housing trust fund at this november's election. at committee this week both affordable housing advocates and housing builders spoke in support of the ordinance. at the hearing the board amended to make conforming amendments to another section. also to add in an evaluation component. where the city would look at the effect of this exemption on achieving our city's housing policies. this evaluation would be done three years after the effective date of the ordinance. then in conjunction with the five-year updates that are required by the mayor's office of housing. also, as you know, that housing board ordinance is moving through the board committees, so if that becomes effective it would be a component with that reporting mechanism as well.

also the ordinance was amended to move effective date to january 15th from january 1st to allow review of the specific exemption once the housing trust fund becomes effective. with those amendments the ordinance is recommended for approval to the board. then at tuesday's hearing supervisor ferrell's ordinance to reinstate liquor controls on union street was heard. you will remember the commission recommended approval of this ordinance with minor modification on september 9th. this week the full board approved the ordinance, as it has been amended. supervisor's wiener tax amendment for business properties, a business and tax and police code amendment and little bit of planning code amendment was heard. this would simplify the requirements for parking five or fewer spaces in a residential building. you recommended approval with minor modifications. your modifications were incorporated into the

revised ordinance . this week the unanimously voted to approve the ordinance. also the car wash legislation, which would allow existing gas stations along 19th avenue to add car washes. this was recommended for approval with modifications by you. in this case the modifications were not incorporated into the ordinance. this week the board did approve it on final reading. there was a building code amendment that would change the threshold for efficiency size to be 70 square foot smaller than the current controls. this was heard by you guys as an informational item june 28th . this week it was continued again to november 20th to allow second reading wiener to continue to work with some interested constituents. he announced he is cautiously optimistic that they will be able to make amendments by november 20th. as the director mentioned the successor agency ordinance was heard.

it was amended and approved on first reading. this is a very fast-moving ordinance, which was introduced the previous week after consultation of the president and vice president. we did put together a pretty lengthy memo you will be getting today. i guess we will be talking about it in the future in more detail. it will be up for the second read on tuesday before your hearing on thursday. oh yes, new introductions. supervisor mar requested a hearing on potential traffic and parking and circulation impacts for the new target center at masonic and geary. supervisor mar introduced potential administrative code entitled healthy retailer foods program. this legislation would create a new program to oversee and coordinate city's incentive and assistance programs for healthy food retailers. the lead agency would be economic and workforce development department.

among other things this ordinance states that office should coordinate with many agencies, including department of public health and the planning department to figure out incentives. that concludes the report right now. unless there are questions. >> as i recall this department's commission had looked pretty carefully at the target stores in the pathway and entry into the parking lot out of -- so i'm not sure if this is a new study on top of what the department's already looked through very carefully. >> it is unclear at this point even if the planning department would be requested to attend or if it is more focused at npa. i will be talking to the supervisor's office to get more information. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> i had kind of the same question. we went through whatever the environmental piece was. i remember long discussions about the size of signs, where the parking was going to be. that being said it would

seem that would be taken up at land use by the board of supervisors, were there to be any appeal of our actions or at an earlier time. i'm not quite sure of the legislative piece that's being proposed. >> this is not actually -- it is a hearing request. so it is not a change in city law but request that possibly city agencies and members of the public concerned would come and talk about the issue. >> i have one additional question, thank you for that. regarding the on site inclusionary change from threshold of five to ten, the effective date is set back to january 15th. i think you said to evaluate the effect of the legislation were it to be -- or the ballot measure were it to be passed. but it would seem that i would be thinking the board is already approving this. it would not be subject to change in january. i'm kind of confused about

that continuance of the -- >> there is some interaction between the charter amendment and this particular ordinance, where the charter amendment would freeze in place controls at a certain date. inclusionary controls could not be evaluated. this is moving this out. come january 1st our current controls where the threshold is five units would be in place. this would allow if the city reevaluate of getting inclusion near housing funding and units from the five to nine-unit buildings this would allow the city to change that in the future. under the proposal you heard, if that went into effect, that might not be allowed to be changed in the future. >> that is confusing. not a discussion but asking for a clarification. it is a companion to the ballot measure. a lot of people are basing their decisions on what they thought was done legislation, so just my

comment. >> my comment is this will be heard next weekend and provide more information. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there a board of appeals report? >> okay. historic preservation did not meet. commissioners, we can move forward to general public comment with a duration of 15 minutes. members of the public can add dress you following the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. accept for agenda items which may not be addressed at this time but only when they are called on calendar. for this category each members of the public may address you for up to three minutes each. i have one speaker card. the total duration of this category. >> thank you. first speaker, kelly watts.

>> sftv overhead. by the way, congratulations. hope things work out. >> thank you. >> can i start? i'd like to put in context the mini levee project, characterized as a gift by fields foundation yet many members and associates profit or stand to profit from millions involved. in attendance at the meeting last week were paid lobbyist and foundation member susan hirsch and patrick haynan. despite many citizen's efforts to cooperate with city fields foundation by providing scientific health perspective by crumb the department has chosen to politicize and discredit

them. for years i have updated them with reports. surprisingly the foundation conducted a smear campaign against me that's put my family and neighbors in danger. this e-mail was sent out that patrick hanan of city fields which depicts me as deceitful and directed recipients to a web site where i lived and contained personal information about my family and neighbors. i appealed the rec and park foundation to stop enabling such harassment. instead it was allowed to escalate. for years the foundation has fed the media and local soccer web sites with inflammatory rhetoric to stir up emotions and create an antagonistic client. this was made prior to my appeal, which targeted my personally. not long after it appeared i was attacked in my neighborhood by men who declared themselves supporters of the foundation's agenda. with pipes they assaulted me, repeatedly kicking me in the head and face, left me bleeding with a concussion. they turned out to be officials of a soccer league with close ties to

the foundation. they appeared before this commission in may as well as the supervisor hearing in seats reserved for the organization by foundation director susan hirsch. they have frightened my family and neighbors . this intimidation is exactly why prominent local doctors at this time choose to supply their scientific data and outreach through me, resort to using pseudonyms. the fisher brothers will get their synthetic fields and everything else they ask for from this commission, mr. ginsberg, mr. buell or supervisors regardless of long-term medical impacts to end users and the neighborhoods. they say they are done for now but there are too many people profiting to believe that. i respectfully ask all responsible parties to clean up your act. we get it. you have a bully pulpit. alter your corrupting tactics before you cause another tragedy or death, like brian stow or steven martin. thank you. >> is there any additional

public comment? >> with that, commissioners, we can move forward on your calendar. we will go back to item 2. 2012.0453c for 1414 van ness avenue. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the planning commission. sharon young, planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to allow change of use of existing ground fork retail space to institutional. allow proposed institution miami at san francisco campus from its current location at 415 jackson to 1414 van ness avenue, moving to rc4, zoning district, 130b height and bulk district and van ness special use district in van ness on the multiuse

district. founded in 1993 miami ad school provides post secondary education that prepares students for careers in advertising. the abbreviated institution master plan for miami ad school was presented as an information item under case 2012.0453i and to the planning commission at a june 21st hearing. miami ad school occupies 9,239 square foot of ground floor commercial space at 1414 street and proposes to relocate to a small facility to 7,940 square foot ground floor commercial tenant space at 1414 van ness avenue within the van ness corridor. the proposal will involve interior improvements through ground floor tenant space with no expansion to the existing voting envelope. to date the department has not received any communication regarding the proposed project. staff -- planning department staff is recommending the proposed project be approved with

conditions . this concludes my presentation, thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> just like this. take something out of order. i will vote for this. there is no reason for testimony unless we can open it for testimony. but i think the commission is -- it was on consent. i don't have any problem with it. what i wanted to say is this, along with what commissioner moore was pointing out, with respect to university of california expansion, this kind of goes along with that, in that they have actually applied for a conditional use to use the space, quite unlike another institution which has a similar kind of program along -- what is it, advertising and post secondary education and the

teaching of such things as graphics and other things. i just wanted to not -- congratulate is the wrong word but point out another institution seems to be able to follow the rules. >> is there any public comment on this item? could you call the questions please. >> your motion. >> sorry. motion. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> board. aye. heals. aye. moore. aye. sugaya. aye. wu. aye. fong. aye. >> thank you. that passes unanimously. case 2007.00789k, this is informational presentation on section 295 actions *

related to transit center district plan and 101 first street, transbay tower. >> before joshua starts his presentation i just wanted to let you know the actions. josh has a schedule as well of actions related to the plan. as you know the board adopted the plan in august for the transit center district. the presentation that you have today that josh has prepared is specifically related to the shadow question. we are convening commission with the rec park in two weeks to consider the shadow budgets for the parks affected by the transit center proposal. this is a preliminary information only presentation so you have more detailed information about that before the joint hearing in two weeks, thank you. >> want to start?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. joshua swisky, planning department staff, joined by kevin die of department staff, who sls -- who is also working closely on these. the slides. may 24th this commission adopted the plan, which was forwarded on to board, which unanimously approved the plan in late july and fined by the mayor in early august. as of a couple weeks ago the ordinances and plan are now effective. so that puts us into the implementation phase of the plan. the first thing that is required to be dealt with before individual projects can move forward are issues related to the sunlight ordinance, section 295, so we are here, as requested by commissioners, to provide a detailed discussion and presentation on the various matters as they relate to the shadows, then in two weeks you have a joint hearing scheduled with recreation and park commission to potentially

take action related to these. then a week later, presuming certain actions are taken on the 11th with the recreation park commission, you will have a hearing on entitlement actions related to the transbay project itself. so i won't belabor the details of the plan, you know them well, it is a reminder this is a come hen -- comprehensive plan. a lot of discussions have revolved around specific projects only. this is a comprehensive plan. we present it to you in a comprehensive manner and hope you consider it in that way. this project is a long -- realizes a long-term goal of the downtown plan to shift the balance of growth south of market around the transbay transit center and really come through its adoption -- looked on as a statewide and national model of transit-oriented growth. there's substantial revenues that will result from this plan, close to

$600 million, of which over $400 million are required to meet the city's commitment to fund the downtown rail extension. there is a very substantial open space component, over $160 million, that will fund over 1,200 acres in the downtown, zero publicly owned in the downtown space and provide 20 million for open space improvements outside the plan area in the downtown including 9 million for open space in china town, very heavily -- neighborhood that is substantial need of additional open space, as well as other potential park improvements in the downtown. we gave informational presentation to the recreation and park commission about a month ago, month and a half ago. there commissioners raised a number of informational questions. we created a memo that we have provided for them. thought i might point out a couple items that might be of interest. that is included in packets

you will receive for the joint hearing, but just to provide a couple of points of note, one of the questions i came up with was what does the sort of anticipated schedule of sort of the first round of fees that might be collected, that might be available for open space improvements. so, you know, in the broad area. assuming there are three projects on file that are looking to get approved in the near future that might be before you, the transbay tower, 181 fremont and taham. together they would bring in 7.5 million of pope space impact fees that are a result of the plan. some of these fees could be used for park improvements outside the plan area. additional 3.8 million will be available for improvements within the redevelopment area. speaking of potential park improvements outside of the plan area, as i mentioned, the plan funding program designates $9 million of

future impact fees for improvements to china town open space. one thing that has come up in conversation with the community is the potential to look at the new central subway in china town as a potential new open space location. this is still very early in its concept, but it is very timely, as the subway project is moving forward. the opportunity is roughly sketched out, potentially about 10,000 square feet of new open space. combination of the roof of the new station and possibly that grade. it is adjacent, as you see in diagrams to the gordan lyle elementary school yard, so this could function as an extension of that. so that was another question that came up from the reck park commission as to what opportunities might actually exist in china town for new open space. moving back to the plan

itself, remember the plan reclassified a number of parcels in the plan area. to some heights arranging from 600 to 850 feet, and the transbay tower site at 1,000 feet. as you know from the certification of the eir and adoption of the ceqa finding that a number of these new buildings could potentially shadow, or add new shadow to properties owned by the recreation and park department, which is why we are having this conversation. so just a couple reminders about what section 295, which was established by prop k says. says that it requires the planning commission to disapprove any new building that will result in net new shadows that promoted a verse impact on the park, unless it's been determined the impact would be insignificant. of course adverse is a subjective term. the section further goes on to delegate authority to the planning commission and

the recreation park commission to jointly establish criteria for implementation of those terms and of the measure. after a number of years of deliberation in 1989 the joint commissions, the planning commission and reck park commission adopted memo * that established criteria, qualitative and some quantitative for evaluation of potential shadow impacts on reck park properties. there is a number of criteria which it lays out for evaluation of shadows in all parks, including time of day, size of shadow, location on park, duration of the shadow, also the public good of the project that might shadow the parks. it is important to note that the -- section 295 and prop a do not mandate any particular quantitative mechanisms be adopted. it doesn't mention

quantitative mechanisms. this is something the commission appropriate in 1989 was appropriate to do. so the commissions adopted 14 -- adopted what we call coloquails of those parks. of those budgets, or acls, three were set at quantities above zero. 11 were set at zero essentially, mean nothing new shadow could be approved. in deciding how to allocate or assign budgets the commission sort of deliberated over the availability of open space in the downtown, patterns of open space, patterns of development. where there were pending plans and pending developments. it is notable to look at civic center, which was granted largest budget of

1% at the time. you can see it in the memos in 1989. the commissions were thinking at the time there is a civic center plan. there are certain buildings that have come in per that plan would shadow a square, minor amounts so wanted to create a budget for those. there was sort of comprehensive thinking at the time for certain parks. as you can see, almost all the parks were north of market street. there wasn't much of any open space south of market street and wasn't a vision of how growth and south of market might add space to the open space network, so there was a heavy focus on the north of market area. since 1989 there have been 25 projects that have been approved by the commissions that would add shadow to the parks. as part of the actions, the joint commission has revised these budgets on nine occasions on six different parks. some of those have been

changed multiple times, such as bodecker park. bringing back * to this plan, here is a map of -- you can see of the downtown area. the plan area is outlined in red. all the open spaces shown on the map are recreational and park. open spaces. not showing non reck and open spaces because they are not the subject of section 295. the plan doesn't have open reck or by any public agency. the different colorations of the parks on the map, darker green, are parks that might have new shadow from planned buildings and light green ones do not. this is an excerpt of the table from the ier. so there are nine parks which could potentially be shadowed by buildings in the plan area. seven of which have budgets

established for them. so just before we get -- the bulk of the presentation is sort of a park-by-park analysis, going through each, describing what the potential new shadows might look like in terms of time of day and time of year in terms of usage. before we go tint park by park discussion, presentation, just broad observations. the first is that the -- as you can see from the previous map, those little black dots are the major new sites for new construction in the plan area that were identified and analyzed in the eir. they are all substantial distance from the parks. generally quarter to mile to half mile from some of these parks. the shadows by and large only reach these when the sun is low in the sky, generally early mornings. when there are certain slices of skyline that are opened up for these bits of shadow to pierce through for small amounts of time.

so because of the distance and the general, you know, times of day when the sun is rising, these generally sweep very quickly through these open spaces. for some of the parks the shadows last for as much as five minutes. at most for some 60 minutes. none of these shadows from any parks or buildings last throughout the year. at the most any one would be shadowed about ten weeks, ten to 12 weeks throughout the year. another note, something that was not captured in the analysis, the quantitative analysis and something that is technically difficult to quantify but should be something that is considered in sort of a qualitative evaluations is the fact that because these buildings are such a distance away, and some are viewed from that distance pretty slender in the sky, f