give and take at the meeting. >> that's great. maybe you could have an admin bulletin that maybe makes some suggestions as to how that could take place. >> sure. >> like a sign-up sheet, that kind of stuff. >> commissioner antonini. >> i am also supportive. i think it makes perfect sense to have these buffer zones. the only question i have is looking at the map, there are a series of streets that appear to have the housing directly adjacent to pdr-1 zones without a buffer, such as williams, new haul, carol, particularly carol and paul. is there perhaps [speaker not understood] could answer or someone could tell me why there is no buffer along the south side of carol or the -- along paul, the south side of paul.

>> i hadn't noticed that, but i don't know the thinking behind when they did the zoning for that area. but we can look into it. >> yeah, i would check that. the other areas i noticed at a quick glance, there were a couple areas along williams, not a long area, and also along newhall where you had the blue areas directly across the street ~ from the yellow area. so, i'm not sure if that's an oversight or there's something there. i know paul has a railroad track there that the caltrain comes through. so, maybe that's part of what's there. >> so, i think that you're getting at, commissioner, this pda1b was added a number of years ago. doesn't mean maybe it should have been applied a little more liberally. i would say in particular reference to carol, the south

side of carol there is actually a new development with the 800 3rd street. at one time it was a vacant m-1 zoned industrial. the neighborhood has been changing and that's kind of probably a little bit of the confluence you're seeing. >> okay, thank you. >> we're not -- we maybe weren't very clear on this in the presentation. we're not proposing to change the boundary of the pdr-1-b district. we're just proposing to change the -- to require a pre-app meeting within the existing boundary. >> i realized what the motion is for, but i just was looking at the map and saying, well, if you're trying to provide the buffer, maybe you should relook at the map and see if it should be rezoned in some other parts of that area. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'll make a motion to recommend approval. >> second. >> would the suggestion that planning staff look at an admin bulletin or some mechanism addressing more details about

the pre-app meeting. >> is that acceptable to the seconder? >> yes. that's a good idea. >> commissioners, nothing else, then we'll call the question. on the motion to adopt the recommendation for approval directing staff to consider administrative bulletin, commaedthctionv? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. and places you on item 13 for case no. 2013.0402u - bayview hunters point citizens advisory committee. >> good afternoon, commissioners. [speaker not understood], department staff. the item before you today is an ordinance proposed by supervisor kim and this proposed ordinance would amend

administrative code to establish a bayview hunters point cac. this cac would perform as an advisory body for zone 2 of the bayview hunters point area development area and it would replace the previous project area committee at a time of the redevelopment agency. before i start my presentation, i would like to introduce andrea [speaker not understood] from [speaker not understood] office to talk about this ordinance. >> hi, thank you, commissioners. i know many of you here are familiar or were very familiar with the former bayview project area committee and i was before you a number of times and certainly submitted ample correspondence for your consideration. and the p-a-c was previously a requirement under california redevelopment law. as you know, the bulk of the southern part of district 10* are a series of redevelopment areas, the hunters point

shipyard, and visitacion valley. the p-a-c was managed by the redevelopment agency and really worked hand in hand with the redevelopment commission in terms of providing direction on the use of tax increment as well as being the stewards and guardians of land use controls that were facilitated as part of that. and i think very importantly, the p-a-c also provided an important community forum for where different development projects in the project area were vetted. they had lots of committees and meetings and really served, i think, although not at all times perfectly, but it really was an important vehicle for the community to be able to express their specific views on the different development projects and change that was happening in their neighborhood. when the redevelopment plan was initially adopted for bayview in 2006, the planning department entered into a delegation agreement with the redevelopment agency that spelled out in great detail the roles of planning staff and redevelopment agency staff in terms of notifying the project

area committee of any zoning proposals, conditional use, or other types of proposal that were going to need planning action. at that time the delegation agreement which was later amended in 2010 when we did the adoption of the phase ii project for the hunters point shipyard in scandal stick point required that the p-a-c consider item before the planning commission did and also consider them before the redevelopment commission did. and the planning department's key function in that respect was really notice and providing sort of question and staff support to the extent that there were questions at the project area committee about a particular type of permit. they were also required to report on the p-a-c signing or determinations in their case reports, which was why you did from time to time see them. so, i know that the commission has spent an ample amount of time talking about the impacts of the dissolution of the redevelopment agency. and so have we. it has been a difficult process and one of the many things that

went away with redevelopment was not only millions of dollars of tax increment, but also our project area committee. so, right now for projects that happen in the bayview there isn't a citizens led group that i can send developers to when they come to my office and ask how to do community outreach in the bayview. and the bayview is challenging in terms of capacity of neighborhood groups, neighborhood organizations, and at the same time it is experiencing a significant amount of change. and, so, community involvement and land use decisions, and land use approvals is really quite critical. so, we took the dissolution of the redevelopment agency as an opportunity to look at how we can actually improve the project area committee. under crl it was extremely limited in terms of qualifications and who could sit on the body. so, we've done our best to kind of broaden i think as much technical expertise as we can on the body. and we've also sort of narrowed

its focus a little bit at this point. we have tried to keep it as consistent as possible with what the obligations of the planning department were in its previous agreement, which is providing notice to the entity of conditional use applications , zoning changes as well as anything that would technically qualify under our ppa application. the city administrator's office who is facilitating many of the new roles and responsibilities of the former redevelopment agency will be providing the staff support for this entity along with the mid-market cac. so, planning staff will not be overly burdened in that particular way. as you can see in the case report, we have been working with staff on some refinements to this legislation. there were some things in the old delegation agreement that, you know, just given that it was executed in 2006 are not the most consistent with the existing planning code. so, we've really tried to make

it as consistent as possible with the ppa application. i think one of the other staff recommendations is also to set a timeline for the p-a-c or for the cac to be able to review projects so that it's not stalled necessarily for a lack of planning -- stalled at the planning commission process for a lack of community review. which i think is something that we can be fully supportive of. the one note that is in there at the end of your case report is about the pdr being noticed. we would like, since you supported that piece of legislation, to include notifications encompassed in the pdr-1-b district. and, so, i generally -- i think that hopefully this is a reasonable reconstitution of a community body that i think was really important to our neighborhood and hopefully will be important to you and to the supervisors as far as decision makers on land use projects. so, i can answer more questions about the history of the p-a-c or the delegation agreement or

the redevelopment plan, but i'll now give it back to kim. >> thanks, andrea, for the background. i'll just get the background part of my presentation. i'll talk more about our recommendations. so, the proposed ordinance as was proposed by supervisor are replicated exactly what the delegation agreement between the redevelopment agency and the planning department required for the project area committee. and we consulted with the staff who worked with the p-a-c at the time and we identified some areas of improvement for the requirements. and though areas of improvement primarily around the [speaker not understood] projects that go to the cac and also the notification process. so, as was introduced, the

ordinance required projects to the cac that include a significant project which is any residential project of 10 units or more and any commercial project that is adding more than 25,000 square feet. also all conditional use permits in this project area, approval of any new construction or substantially habitation [speaker not understood] or any neighborhood commercial zoning district, and approval of significant land use proposals like zoning amendments and also any planning commission hearing and other projects if requested by the project area committee. so, some of these like substantial habitation was with a little vague. it wasn't defined and we don't really have a definition in the planning code to identify projects that qualify as substantial habitation. and also somebody said to

change that and propose changing that and also -- we also recommend that we can use existing thresholds that are in the planning code already to help identify the projects that have to go to the cac and also streamline the notification process. so, our proposal is to use the newly established project preliminary project review threshold for the projects that have to go to the cac, and that is residential projects that are six units or more and nonresidential projects that are -- that are 10,000 square feet or more. so, that already includes everything that was in the delegation agreement and even more. and also since you already have this process established, once the planner issues a letter of

ppa, they can use that letter to notify the cac. and for substantial habitation, we propose to use existing definitions in section 311 and for vertical additions of 7 feet -- 7 feet or more and horizon' of 10 feet or more for residential projects. and then the projects that recommend change of use establish -- as defined in section 312 and also projects that propose demolition of residential uses and define section 317. so, in that way we're using existing definitions of new projects or alteration projects that are already in the planning code. and then still we recommend to keep our conditional use permits, all zoning amendments

and also recommending to add planning department [speaker not understood] and plan projects that cac can be a forum for community input for longer term planning as well. and then the second area that we are proposing amendments is the notification process. the way it's proposed right now, it doesn't really layout the detailed process for notification, and staff thought that it would be -- both the cac and the planners and the community would benefit from a more detailed requirement in terms of notification. so, we are recommending to add timelines for a review for when the project sponsor -- how much time they have to schedule a hearing before the cac and how much the cac has time to provide their input and that

way it's more clear and the expectations are more clear in that way. and the timeline is detailed in the case report if there's any questions i can delve more into it. so, we propose that the commission recommends approval of this ordinance and the recommendation -- the recommended modifications of staff. and since this ordinance is not amending the planning code, no action is required. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment? thank you, president fong, commissioners. director ram. dan dote again. i'm a decades long bayview resident business owner and as mentioned earlier run a little outfit called the office for community planning and we work

on project review. i was a member of the p-a-c from 1996 when the concept plan was written through adoption in 2006. so, i have quite a bit of information and institutional memory about all that. it should be pointed out that the relationship with planning was a good one during those years. we had some problems with the way projects may have been reviewed in a timely manner, but i think we had some good relationships there we want to build on. things weren't perfect obviously and i think part of that was due to the number of committees and the committee structure on the p-a-c. what is important to understand about this ordinance is that it really is focused on land use and project appropriateness in the bayview district. and i think for that -- for those subjects, this body will be composed of people who have the capacity to look at land use projects, perhaps have background in construction,

architecture, new jersey nichetion, historic preservation, et cetera, and can really speak to those issues that can help inform the neighborhood on a much more comprehensive level. there really is no mechanism in place at this point and as you can see what's happening in the bayview today is that there is significant private investment going in, but there is also a significant public investment. we have a $15 million san francisco public library. we have some public/private partnerships that are happening. so, there is a vibrancy in the corridor. there is a lot of emphasis for compliance with a-d-a and mod requirements and i think that those things would also be looked at when new projects come online. so it is important that a mechanism be put in place and the cac would do that. the cac would also add a level of consistency with your requirements at the planning level or the planning department level for project review and the timeline for project review.

and that's a very positive development. and as was mentioned by kimeo, we've been working with staff on the threshold notification requirements and so on and those things that trigger potentially cac review and we applaud the work of supervisor cohen's office, particularly andrea bruss on bringing this to your attention and we urge you to adopt this resolution. thank you. >> any additional public comment? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i apologize, but for not knowing this, but there was a zone 1 redevelopment area, is that correct? was there a cac for that particular area also? >> yes. so, there's two different redevelopment plans that don't technically overlap each other, but the hunters point shipyard redevelopment plan which has a separate cac actually and then there was the bayview redevelopment plan which had both a zone 1 and a zone 2 and

was covered by the pack. when we did the approval of the combined shipyard phase ii candlestick development, we made the candlestick portion zone 1. so, we anticipate that the projects review for that will continue to go through the hunters point shipyard cac and sort of everything else in broader bayview that was not covered by the phase ii disposition and development agreement will be what is covered in this particular area. >> so, how does that relate to this now? >> so, this is applying only to zone 2. there is a broader bayview. the p-a-c was zone 1 and zone 2. >> okay. and was there any reason to think that we needed to broaden this even more or is that -- >> i think that because the p-a-c had previously existed and had jurisdiction over this area, the cleanest way to do it was to keep the boundaries relatively similar.

it also is cleaner from a land use perspective in terms of providing advice on the redevelopment planned land use controls and to the department and is consistent with the delegation agreement between the departments. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. i'm very supportive. i think, you know, as you pointed out, one of the losses of the redevelopment really is the sort of community-level advisory committee. and i think that this is -- this is one way to replace it, you know, this seems more like a one for one. i'm supportive of staff recommendations also. but as we go forward, i'd be interested in us exploring possibly other forums, too, if we think that there are improvements in the way that communities can input on the land use decisions made in the neighborhood. so, i move to approve the staff recommendation. >> second. >> on that motion to approve with staff's recommendations,

commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. excuse me, commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. if those members of the audience standing in the door could find a seat or if you prefer standing, you can stand on this side of the room for fire safety reasons. i would appreciate it. commissioners, the next item on your calendar is item 15 for case no. 2011.1404c - 2201 market street, request for conditional use authorization. we do have a number of speaker cards and we have made accommodation $for an overflow room if we need one. so, again, for those who just walked into the commission chambers, if you could find a seat, please, or if you prefer standing, stand on this side of

the room for fire safety reasons. i would appreciate it. thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. doug wu, department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish a new formula retail limited restaurant doing business as star bucks at the ground floor of the existing commercial building located at 2201 market street. the building is currently occupied by the industrialists, a local independent business that sells salvaged case goods, glassware, and custom made steel furnishings. the proposed project would include interior tenant improvements, the installation of a new store front, and structural upgrades to the building's apron where proposed outdoor seating would be located. the existing commercial space would not be enlarged and is approximately 3,000 square feet in size including 2600 square feet of interior space that would provide seating for 50 persons and 400 square feet of

exterior space that would provide outdoor seating for 28 person. the proposed hours of business would be from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. star bucks coffee company is based in seattle, washington and has 71 company-owned locations in san francisco. the nearest star bucks locations are approximately one-third of a mile from the proposed project at 40 94 18th street in the castro neighborhood and at 21 08 market street in the show place shopping center. the project is located at the southwest corner of market and sanchez streets within the upper market neighborhood commercial transit district, a two-block commercial corridor between church and noe streets bound by an nc3t corridor to the northeast and the upper market street ncd to the southwest. collectively, these neighborhood commercial zoned areas along market street provide limited convenience goods to adjacent neighborhoods and serve as a destination for a broader area. due in part to its proximity to the castro district.

land use is located within a subject block includes predominantly two and three story buildings that contain a range of commerce uses on the ground floors and upper floors including retail stores, eating and drinking establishments and financial, medical, professional and personal services. several buildings within the block also contain multi-family dwelling units above the ground floor. as noted in staff report, the department has received 59 letters in support from the public, nearby businesses, the merchants of upper market and castro, and the buena advice that neighborhood association in addition to a petition containing 453 individual signatures. the department has also received four letters in opposition to the project from the public, the duboce triangle neighborhood association, and the castro upper market community benefit district. in addition to a petition containing approximately 4200 signatures. since the packet was published the department has received

additional communication including 20 letters in support of and 21 letters and phone calls opposing the project. the letter from the owner of the subject property was also received which clarified that the current lessee was not intended to be a long-term tenant for the commercial space. the department has found the project to be on balance, not necessary, and undesirable for the following reasons. the project is not compatible with the existing mix of city wide and neighborhood serving uses because there are four other independent and formula retail coffee houses within the same two-block zoning district that offer similar bergs and food items including pizza coffee, sweet inspiration, church street cafe, and cafe floor. ~ in addition, there are also three other star bucks locations within one half mile radius and eight within a 1-1/2 mile radius of the subject property. the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood by occupying a prominent corner lot with a formula retail that uses standardized color schemes, decor and signage that

would detract from the distinctive character from the neighborhood which includes primarily local independent real tail businesses. formula retail businesses have a competitive advantage over independent retailers because they are typically better capitalized and can absorb larger start up costs, pay more for leased space, ~ and commit to longer lease contracts. this puts a pressure on existing businesses and potentially price that new start up and independent businesses which tend to be unique, nontraditional and contribute to the character of the neighborhood. the commission recently adopted a policy that established a standardized method for determining the existing and appropriate concentration of formula retail uses in the upper market neighborhood that extends from octavia boulevard to castro street. the policy requires the planning department to recommend disapproval of any project that brings the concentration of formula retail within 300 feet of a subject property to 20% or greater. although the commission still retains the discretion to approve or deny the project. there are currently five

formula retail uses within the vicinity of the property. and the proposed star bucks would bring the concentration of formula retail to 21% within 300 feet. based on these findings and those outlined in the case report, the department recommends disapproval of this project. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor, please.

good afternoon, commissioners. my name is phil burnett. i'm the director of store development for northern california for star bucks coffee. first off i'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present to you our proposed location of 22 0 on the corner of market and sanchez. ~ 2201. i'd like to share a little of who star bucks is. i think sometimes this gets lost in the conversation who we are and what we do in our communities and what we are part of. first off i'd like to share with the commission that we provide health care services,

insurance for all of our partners who work more than 20 hours per week. we have paid time off and we also have stock options for all of our partners. we offer tuition, reimbursement for our pareners. we provide health insurance for domestic partners and we've been doing this since 1995. we are a founding members of the current jobs usa which provides loans for small businesses. we have been voted one of the 100 best places to work forever since fortune magazine started creating a list over a decade ago. we are a local supporter of marriage equality. we are international advocate for ethical sourcing for environmental stewardship and resource conservation. and in 2012 the efforts of partners, customers and civic leaders and nonprofit organizations star bucks contributed more than 6 13,000 hours community service in 33 countries generating over 2100 projects in 30 days. we are the only organization in the world with 133 lead certified stores and the star bucks foundation has made over 400 grants to nonprofit

organizations in 2012, coming in at $13.8 million. star bucks within san francisco we opened our first store 21 years ago on union street. one of the first stores outside of seattle. we maintain -- we had maintained and still maintain a regional corporate office for over 20 years in san francisco. we have all of our leadership of operations, operation support, support services for northern california. we employ over 1400 partners in san francisco and which 85% live within san francisco. we are a long-term member of the san francisco work force investment board. we are a founding member of the united way bay area road map to cut poverty committee. last year we were supporter of the mayor's summer jobs youth program. this year we are as well and recommit today adding 50 more partners in 2013. april 27th this year we worked