minutes. so. >> i guess that i want to make sure that i understand, we don't know what the final pay out is going to be in is just a preauthorization? >> correct. >> we have our internal estimates. relocation services consultant and they are still well under that estimate from the consultant, but we would be obligated under the relocation law to say whatever expenses are eligible and there is no cap in the relocation law at either the state or the relocation law. >> thank you. >> thank you, director. that was my question, i was wondering why we were preauthorizing without know. >> we could of course come to the board with each claim, individually but that does make it hard for the business to move forward with moving and trying to pay the contractors >> okay. >> thank you. >> approval? >> resolution? >> so moved. >> and a second? >> the first and the second. director lloyd? >> aye. >> i will note for the record,

metcalf has departed. >> director reiskin? >> aye. >> vice chair ortiz. >> aye. >> and kim. >> aye. >> that is 4 ayes and item ten is approved. do you have a motion to approve the minutes of the january 10th. >> so moved. >> first, second. >> and all of those in favors. >> aye. >> i will go ahead and note for the record that director metcalf was absent with that it is approved and that will conclude your agenda for today >> thank you, see no other items the meeting is adjourned.

>> regular meeting for thursday, february 14th, 2013, hatch i valentine's day, everyone. please be aware the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and if you wish to speak on an agendized item, please fill out a speaker card and do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu is anticipate today arrive late. commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner borden?

>> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore 1234 >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first up for consideration of items proposed for continuance, item 1, south side between howard and folsom streets; lot 125 and 126 in assessor's block 3735 - mandatory discretionary review, pursuant to planning code section 317 (e), of building permit application no. 2012.11.21.4720, proposing to merge units 1202 (lot 125) and 1203 (lot 126) in an existing 91 unit building within the c-3-o (sd) (downtown commercial, downtown office special development) zoning district and 320-i height and bulk district proposed for continuance to march 21st, 2013. * case no. 2011.0800c, 601 van ness avenue >> is there any public comment on the one item proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden? >> continue item 1 to the date on the calendar. >> second. >> on that motion to continue item 1 to march 21st, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0.

on the consent calendar item 2, case no. 2012.1296c, 383 rhode island street, request for conditional use authorization. i believe commissioner moore is requesting that it be pulled off. >> [inaudible]. >> we'll place that first item under the regular calendar. moving on, commissioners, commissioners questions and matters, item 3, consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 31st, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner borden. >> approve draft minutes november -- excuse me, from january 31st. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt minutes for january 31st, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? he aye. >>and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously

6 to 0 and places you under item 4, commission questions and comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a couple of things, i've been hearing these reports in the news about an impending demolition of candlestick park. about a year from now, if in fact the 49ers are able to move into the stadium that's being built in santa clara. and i think i need more information on this. i'll give you a bit of history. as you know, the city of san francisco owns candlestick. i think it paid for the building of candlestick and its enlargement in '71 and more enlargement in 1908. i'm not exactly sure whether the 49ers participated, but in the mid '90s there was a measure that was passed. rather than renovate candlestick after the giants left for grown bay and chicago has done with existing stadiums, measure was passed by the voters to allocate $100 million towards the building of a new stadium right next to candlestick. unfortunately some problems dealing with the 49ers

management that never happened, and the plan moved forward and then the 49ers decided to begin talks with santa clara and announced in 2006 they were going to use that as a preferred option. the voters in san francisco in 2008 passed a measure and it was prop g, i believe. and this particular measure moved the $100 million amount that had to be spent on a new stadium from the city of san francisco to the horizontal developer of the candlestick point hunters point shipyard development. as far as i'm concerned, i think that's still there. i'm not really sure what happens to that. it's like if there isn't a new stadium built, one of our options we analyzed a lot of options environmentally, and one of them was the retaining of candlestick and the area which would have been the new stadium out at hunters point would have been available to the developer. so, i just need some answers from staff as to how this can

happen without some further action in terms of this, what i see as being a requirement on the part of the horizontal developer to put $100 million either towards the renovation of candlestick or a new stadium. so, i don't expect an answer today, but i think it's an issue that a lot of people are asking about. and with good concern, because, you know, we will be -- if it is demolished we will be again without a venue that is available in san francisco for really large crowds in the capacity of 60 to 70,000 which are not just limited to football games. and we suffered through having no arena 43 years and lost a lot of business because of that. anyway, on another subject, i was contacted by roberto hernandez and he has been contacted apparently by google, and they are interested in having a bigger presence in the

mission district to try to help train residents of the mission district in technical issues and also perhaps aid in cultural programming and things that they are good with. his concern via an intermediary is to just know what the zoning is because they apparently are trying to rent a temporary space there to do this. and i'd just like to hear from staff if there's any barriers to this. i know that when we passed the eastern neighborhoods, there were certain restrictions as to tech uses in certain areas, and what would qualify as such and, you know, this is something that sounds like a very promising opportunity on the part of a major tech company that is developing a -- wisely developing a bigger and bigger presence in san francisco. so, i just want to know what the zoning situation is there. and they can report to him. and that's basically it for

today. thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> yes, there's been reports in the paper that fresh and easy might sell to wal-mart. and i just would love to get a comment from staff if that were indeed the case for the fresh and easy locations we have in san francisco, how easy or what are the requirements if someone wanted to change this formula retail from fresh and easy to wal-mart. one of the stories in the paper indicated that for the bayview location because it didn't have the regular formula retail controls that they wouldn't have to -- they could [speaker not understood] and i wasn't clear on that. so, that would be great. >> i need to double-check the zoning for the bayview location. but under the current code, if wal-mart buys all of the fresh and easy locations and brands them, then the code would not consider that a change that would need a new conditional use authorization. however, if they were just to buy one of the stores, then they would need to come in for

a new conditional use authorization to change from the fresh and easy to the wal-mart. so, that's under the current planning code requirements for formula retail. >> commissioner moore. >> director, thank you for issuing a quick response to the railroad boulevard, [speaker not understood], a question i raised last week. as i read it, the one thing i would love to see is a diagram of exactly where the demising lines of these considerations are because i am a visual person. in going through the description would help me to have some form of a diagram, even if it's just bubbles which generally speak about where it is. would appreciate that. >> commissioners, it will place you under directeder's report item 5, director's announcements. >> thank you, jonas.

good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to just give you a couple of minute update on the functions of the housing review committee which is a committee that i sit on as part of what was -- it was created out of prop c for the housing trust fund. that committee was charged under the housing trust fund to come up with a quote, definition of significant increase of residential development. and to give you the background, the ballot measure that passed last year lowers the inclusionary housing requirement from 15% to 12% and capped it at 12%, but created exceptions to that cap when there is "as significant increase in residential development." it did not define what that meant and created this housing review committee that would define what that meant to move forward. what that would allow is that for sites, larger sites that are larger or have a higher increase that are up zoned, the ballot measure allows the city

to require higher than 12% inclusionary. so, that housing review committee is made up of myself ultimately the director of housing, mayor's office of housing, [speaker not understood] director of the office of economic and work force development. it's a public meeting. we had our first meeting last thursday and we will be meeting again on a yet to be determined date to get a more specific recommendation from staff on what constitutes the exceptions that would allow us to increase the inclusionary requirements beyond 12%. so, i just wattved to report to you on that activity and as soon as we have that meeting date i will give you that information as well. and that concludes my report. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> if i may ask, there might not be an answer at the moment. larger site means site in square footage or site allowance by height so each of those conditions creates a larger project? where is the break point, number of stories, number of units or square feet -- >> exactly all of the above that we're looking at. we're looking at an increase in density or height or the size

of the height. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i agree, it sounds rather subjective at this point. hopefully we can have something that's more defined because i know that we have situations where some builders have said the costs actually go up when you have a taller building because of the construction costs are more expensive with higher buildings than they are with stick-framed lower buildings. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a follow-up to commissioner borden's question. so, you take the long's chain stores, retail stores that are now over 11 purchased by starbucks. starbucks could come in and change those without a cu? >> yes, i'm glad you asked the question. i just pulled up the code section to clarify a little bit further. so, generally if you are changing a burger king from mcdonald's because that's how the businesses change, but burger king didn't or mcdonald's didn't buy out all of burger king, it says that you would need to get a new cu.

but in the event that you don't need a new cu, there's been rebranding, the formula use operation remains the same in terms of its size, function and general merchandise offering as determined by the zoning administrator. so, if it were to turn into a starbucks and they retain the same operation, then they would not need a new formula retail cu. however, if they did change the functionality of it, they were no longer a bakery, then arguably they would not be the same in terms of its use, size and function and they could be subject to a conditional use. we haven't had this issue come up. i think the closest we've had is a bank -- sorry, at the time the banks were not subject to formula retail, but grocery stores, i think albertsons changed to lucky's so they rebranded. but they're the same in terms of its use, size and function did not need a new cu. >> but we could -- that law could be changed to require that cu? >> this could be amended by the

board of supervisors to require a new cu. there is certainly flexibility in how that could be applied, yes. >> okay. >> okay, next item, please. >> commissioners, item 6, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron star from the department legislative staff. there were no ordinances heard at the land use hearing this week that involved the planning department. however, at the full board hearing the board of supervisors heard and voted to approve on first reading supervisor wiener's ordinance that would modify the car share parking controls. if you recall, this commission heard that ordinance on december 6, 2012 and voted unanimously for approval with modifications. supervisor wiener did integrate the commission's recommendations into the ordinance and has also started setting up talks between the planning department and mta about having mta take over some

enforcement for parking regulations in the planning code. the second reading for this item will be next week. also introduced at the board this week was a hearing request by supervisors wiener and breed requesting the office of economic work force development, mayor's office of housing, the mta, planning department, and the san francisco county transit authority to report on the status of octavia boulevard land parcel sales and unused revenue associated with those sales. specifically the departments are asked to report on the rationale for using this revenue for uses other than satisfying the transportation related needs on and around octavia boulevard as well as resolutions for meeting both the area's significant transit needs as well as affordable houseving needs. another hearing request by supervisor scott wiener and david chiu was introduced at the board requesting the mta, the department of public works, the planning department and the san francisco county transit authority to provide an update

on the better market street project including schedule and progress on improving enter agency coordination and the proposal to construct the separated bike lane on mission street. * both hearings are tentatively scheduled for march 11, 2013. and that's pretty much all. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer. thanks. >> doesn't appear to be any questions. thank you. next item, please. >> board of appeals last night had a pretty lengthy hearing, a couple items that might be of interest to the commission would be a rehearing request for a letter of determination, 800 brotherhood way. in this matter the appellant seemed to base their hearing request on the belief that the board of appeals was not properly prepared for hearing the item in the first place. the board voted not to grant the rehearing request on that and i think as we know, the board of appeals is exceptionally well prepared and

they do, as my experience having been before them for 7 years, they always read their briefs and come very well prepared to the hearings. then a couple other items. there was kind of a confusing mess with permits for the property at 68 presidio avenue. there was a jurisdiction request on three permits and appeal on two permits. the jurisdiction requests were denied. one of the appeals on the permits was withdrawn and the other appeal was continued. it was a matter -- some of the permits had been done in an iterative fashion where we had minor excavation done, the next permit a bit more excavation, a bit more. they weren't clear existing plans. so, there was quite a few issues there with the plans. i think ultimately we did come to a resolution with all the parties and the permit holder and hopefully we'll have that concluded in the next week. there was also an appeal of building permit for 264 door street. this was before the planning commission as a discretionary

review request in june of last year. it's a two-story auto repair facility and light industrial zoning district. the back of it backs into a live/work. and the people that were in the -- living in the live/work were complaining about the impacts on light and air to their property. should be noted in the sli zoning district no dwelling uniunited states are allowed, live/work is aloud. this project was built out in the mid '90s. * allowed at the hearing, the planning commission voted to make a 45-degree [speaker not understood] at the rear of the property to give a bit more light and relief. at the hearing the appellants argued this was not enough and wanted further reduction in the second floor. there is also some discussion in their brief about putting a mural or something nice to look out at the rear of the auto repair facility. we noted that the property is not actually located to the east, it's actually located to the northeast. so, impacts on light and air would be minimal. it's a narrow i think less than

25 feet wide property. the stage loft is a pretty massive building. they were also arguing it did not comply with the western soma, but the current zoning is in effect and it does comply with the current zoning fully. so, with that, the board voted unanimously to uphold the permits. the last item that might be of interest was an appeal of a variance determination, variance decision letter for 209 prentiss and 1201 court landv street. dan sider was acting zoning administrator on this item. it's in bernal heights and it was vaerctiontionv yerba buenationv for lot area mass reduction parking. all were granted except the mass reduction variance. zoning administrator did not find there were findings sufficient to grant that variance and the board of appeals agreed with that. it was the permit holder who had -- varice holder who had appealed that decision and the board unanimously upheld that decision. i think now mr. sider co