close about the transit. i had active one before with the drivers, when we were getting to our housing loin indications and they were talking about the reduction of the time. make it short and simple. i requested two of the drivers the exact bus to get to the pacific heights area -- >> ma'am, i'm sorry, we're talking about consolidation of the planning code, discussion on transit is no longer on the floor. i understand that, but it's significant about the planning in the codes for the new construction. there were three [speaker not understood] that i had built in russian hills and pacific heights. so, however, when i got to the destination, the bus did take a long time getting there. it was with discomfortable. [speaker not understood]. when people make complaints and say [speaker not understood], i let them know there is evident before i enter here. significantly about the planning codes, and i want to

refer this to judicial counsel and i'll let judicial counsel represent me for other implementations regarding housing, banking or other [speaker not understood] semisable, i'll have that in writing. i think it is professional practice for me to be able to tell everything about public comment [speaker not understood] leave that for public comment. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this topic? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes, it's a great comment, mr. junius. i think the whole purpose is to try to get rid of land use attorneys. [laughter] >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, i know we're not taking action on this today, but i'm fully enthusiastic. there are many people that come on the commission and ask if there is something i can do with the corridor [speaker not understood]. i look at the chart and ask

scott and apparently i didn't. it is very confusing. for more transparency for the general public, it makes a lot of sense to be able to look at one chart, figure out the zoning and know the code and not have the confusion that exists today. these were on our website. people could clearly see uses. i think that would also be very helpful as well. >> commissioner moore. >> i shared the enthusiasm and also want to tag onto mr. williams' [speaker not understood] it is time to curtail these [speaker not understood]. it is a great way to communicate plannings to the public. >> commissioner wu. >> i agree. article 7 is much easier to use as someone that reads the chinatown [speaker not understood] all the time. this obviously is the most technical topic and i am somewhat interested in how the outreach works. it would be a targeted audience that would be interested. the more we can make it accessible to a larger public, i think that's an important

goal. and the last thing i want to say is there is a huge body of comes that we're [speaker not understood]. not too long ago -- i can't remember right now, but we saw an item where there was an unintended consequence of the leg asian. i know that happens, but the more we can catch it on the front end, the better. >> commissioner antonini. >> mr. starr, i have a question for you. i really like the 1948 book and i kind of think it's what we should try to go back to. it actually has, in terms of industrial or manufacture, it has light and heavy, which is sort of what we have now in terms of pdr. and it has the basic things, residential, commercial, and i would think public is probably in there, maybe it isn't, but those would be the categories i could think of. i don't quite understand when we went to article 7 with

neighborhood commercial districts. why couldn't they have been a subcategory of types of commercial district under article 2, which existed before, i guess? >> the way article 2 is structured, the use definitions are integrated into the chart. it's hard to explain without going through it, but it's divided up, even the industrial uses. it's not simply light industrial or heavy industrial. it lists every type of use and whether that use is permitted in the districts. a lot of it is redundant. so, i think the idea was to get rid of some of that redundancy and streamline it. and that's why -- i guess they could have found a way to do it, but it was moving far as and not looking back. it sound like a great idea to me. whatever you call it, 7 or 2 or whatever number you give it, you should have one master list

with broad categories ~ and the more detailed explanations you private equity them out into the -- neighborhood commercial would be an offshoot of commercial and certain things would apply, and specific neighborhood commercial may have different rules. >> ~ it would be ease toy read because your subheadings would become more detailed as you go to a particular place. that means redoing the whole code, but at least you're starting to simplify it a little bit. [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. >> following up on commissioner sugaya's comments, i'd say mr. starr is trying to get rid of the zoning administrator and i fully support. >> there you go. >> i want to thank mr. starr for all his work on this, very lengthy, very tedious and he's done an excellent job as he has other large pieces of legislation and i fully support the work he's been doing. and probably note the reference

to rue goldberg was appropriate here because mr. goldberg used to work for the city and county of san francisco as a mayor. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i know we're only talking about going so we're not creating new zoning districts. the interesting thing in the zoning map that you passed up here is there is a zone called unrestricted. and i think we should take a look at the city from that standpoint and then we'd have even less business at the planning commission. >> commissioner moore. >> this was printed in '48 and i didn't find so many areas where unrestricted applied. so, i just want to put that in for the record. [laughter] >> commissioners, if there's nothing else, we can move on to item 12. >> actually, jonas, i think the commission is going to take a short break here. and resume in about 15 minutes or so. [recess]

>> thursday, june 20, 2013. like to remind members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate any did you say russianv or outbursts of any kind l and please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, you left off under your regular calendar item 12 for case no. 2013.0160t - castro street neighborhood commercial district use size limits. proposed ordinance. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. jessica look, department staff. [speaker not understood], the institutions in the castro ncd has been introduced by supervisor scott wiener. afterward i will briefly summarize the proposal and the department's recommendation. [speaker not understood].

>> good afternoon, commissioners. andres power with scott wiener's office. he's at mta authority board. the legislation would authorize the planning commission to consider a larger use size than the castro street neighborhood commercial district than it would otherwise per milt. the legislation would provide a path forward for the aids foundation and their amazing project. as we all know, the hiv epidemic continues and is particular acute end up in the castro. and in light of the continuing federal cut to hiv funding which the supervisor is working kid gently to backfill, this project is really exciting and a welcome opportunity for the community. ~ this legislation would allow a larger use size to be considered fully by conditional use. currently this larger use size is not permitted. this authorization is carefully tailored and very limited in scope. so, for a larger project

proposal to use this new authorization, it must be a nonprofit institution that provides direct services to the neighborhood like these foundations. i understand it is generally the commission practice to consider enabling legislation along with a project proposal and the supervisor respects this common practice. but in this circumstance it is important for the viability of the aids foundation project that this enabling legislation proceed before the project is considered by the commission. this important milestone is amending the zoning to allow the proposed use is critical for the fund-raising success of the project. the planning code amendment needs to make its way through the land use committee at the board before the board goes into recess in august in order for the project schedule to stay on track. planning staff is working very closely and deliberately with the aidses foundation and with beginsler, the project architect to make sure the project is the best it can be.

and planning staff and the project sponsor believe that project will be before the commission should this legislation be ~ approved very soon. as i said, a quick note, the legislation was supported unanimously by the small business commission and the castro cbd, the merchants of upper market and castro and the castro eureka valley neighborhood association [speaker not understood] enforced the legislation. on behalf of the supervisor, i'd be honored to have your support. thank you. >> thank you. >> so, i'll just go over specifically what the ordinance would allow. so, first, neighborhoods serving nonprofit institutions with the use size over 4,000 square feet can apply for conditional use authorization. again, to operate in the castro ncd. specifically, it would amend section 121.2 to provide for this use size exception, and amend section 715.21 which is

the castro ncd controls. this makes reference to the provision that use size generally shall not exceed 4,000 square feet except by the institution other large as defined in section 790.50 that is operated by nonprofit use and in a -- and is neighborhood serving. and during the conditional use process, the planning commission will have the opportunity to determine if the proposed use is either necessary or desirable, compatible with the community, meets the definition of other large institution, and is operated again by a nonprofit neighborhood serving use. the department recommends to the commission that you recommend approval to the board of supervisors and our basis for the recommendation includes the nonprofit neighborhood serving social services are in existing and desired use in the castro ncd and are consistent with the neighborhood character. the castro ncd is a

multi-purpose commercial district that provides not only goods and services to the immediate neighborhood but to outside of the district as well. therefore, the district can accommodate this proposed use size. the castro neighborhood is recognized both nationally and internationally as a prominent symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activism and as such this neighborhood serves as a regional mecca for the lgbt community and for social services specific to this community. letters in support were included in your case packet which include, again, as mentioned before, the castro community by the district merchants of upper market castro, the castro eureka valley neighborhood association, and the small -- the san francisco small business commission. we also received one letter from adjacent neighbor who lives along hollywood. and this morning the department received an e-mail, one letter

of opposition from a nearby business owner on castro street and i believe you were in receipt of this as well. so, that concludes my report and i'm available for questions. sophie hayward, staff and legislative affairs is here as well. >> opening it up for public comment. i have a couple speaker cards. neil julian owe. michael berndon. gustav o sarena. good afternoon, president fong, commissioners. i'm neil julian owe [speaker not understood]. foundation currently operates three [speaker not understood]. magnet, stone wall, all of our prevention services and programs under the umbrella of staff aids project. the need for these services has been growing and we're not able to meet the existing demand at our current locations. for example, last year the magnet organization performed more than 15,000 clinical

visits and had to turn away more than 2000 men because of a lack of capacity and space. that's why we're moving forward with the plans to co-locate these services in a larger space at 474 castro which will create the first dedicated facility for health and wellness for gay and bisexual men in the united states. this new center will enable us to keep work -- keep up with the demand for services, a demand by people who live, work, and play in the castro. in addition, the 474 castro facility will allow us to expand our sexual health substance use and mental health services as well as create two new programs to address the issues related to hiv and aging and young men of color. in our work it prepare for this new center, we worked extensively with the neighborhood and merchants groups the last several months, and have support [speaker not understood]. and as i mentioned by the supervisor's staff member and

has been explained, we're under somewhat of a time pressure because of the legislative calendar that exists. along with our architects, we're working very closely with the planning department. i was on the phone call with planning department architects just this morning to finalize the full design packet that will meet the needs of the center as well as blend in with the existing architecture in the neighborhood. and we anticipate that will be very ready to submit that as early as possibly tomorrow to the planning department, and we look forward to reviewing those plans with the commission in the near future as well. so, we respectfully request approval of the proposed ordinance. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is gustavo [speaker not understood] and i'm president of the castro upper market benefits district. i'm also vice president of the honor walk, past president of eureka valley neighborhood association and vice president of the san francisco commission on aging and adult services. for the reasons you just heard,

the cbd strongly supports this ordinance and in addition to all the services that will be provided in this location, the proposal will take care to preserve a popular existing and thriving business in that building which is blush. so, we urge you to put this and approve it. thank you. >> thank you. chair fong and members of the planning commission, i'm michael berdone. and this is probably why the book went from there to so many ordinances now. i speak in strong opposition to amending section 121.2 and providing a use size exception for neighborhood serving nonprofit institutions in the castro ncd. this action is spot zoning for the sole purpose of doing a single entity greater rights than others in the neighborhood which is already a massive building where victorians once stood.

the classic ncd prohibits any residential use over 4,000 square feet and above to maintain the character and vitality of our neighborhood. particularly concerned that as the owner of 4 66 castro, this additional will seriously limit light to my tenants in an already dark lightwell, stain glass panel that provides light to a rear bedroom and cast major shadows over the patio in the back. ~ i appreciate the character of the castro. not only is the owner of the building, the past owner of the elephant walk from 1985 to the early '90s when a next door neighbor gave our landlord the opportunity to not renew the lease. at that time i tried -- i purchased this building in order to try to move my liquor license there. san francisco laws, because of moratorium, my liquor license did not allow me to do that for a commercial venture. i was also the owner of a valuable resource guide in the community with offices that happened to be at 474 castro street as well. i'm also not a stranger to the

issues, pitfalls, arbitrary capricious and unreasonable treatment of a single parcel of land when it deviates from the current plan. although i haven't had the opportunity like you to sit on the san francisco planning commission, i did chair the railway city planning commission two of my years in the late 90s approving projects such as oracle electronic arts and evaluating our new general plan. i'm also director for the california association of realtors and land use and government regulation committee. there we letteredv in training and seminars the league of issues of spot zoning and the pitfalls and litigation that may result because of that. saf is a fantastic organization. i mean, the community certainly supports it. i support it. but a vibrant retail block should not be the place for expansion of their services. there is no off-street parking and none is proposed which will place a further burden on retail establishment that depend on parking for customer support. commissioner borden was talking about vibrant streets.

well, ag ferrari was in bankruptcy after 15 years, a year later -- and then purchased by someone to save it. and a year later it's in escrow again for somebody again to revitalize it. the commercial district is fragile. your intent to amend -- to allow for carefully vetted community support has not really happened. i reached out to the -- to ginsler. they have yet to see the property. i have yet to see plans and they have not got back to me. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other additional speakers on this particular item? your comments on this item, ma'am? [inaudible] area on castro, there were a few, a few planning as well as planning and zoning. this was regarding -- they deal with vacancies and i was interested and i submitted a docket for the purchase.

and substantially -- this is what i want to discuss about realtors or maybe unquote tenants that are nearby the castro area because i talk and i spoke with more than substantial amount of community and i felt you would be interested in sponsoring individuals that were business literate. and i discussed issues with majority of individuals that are tenants -- that are residents there and other counties i did as well. however, significantly there were hmc or whatever realtor it was, however, put their for sale signs. i talked with founders. they put for sale signs on other properties that were vacant. i paid for the contractor to come to remodel the house. i spoke to mayor ed lee as well before even entering. i never entered a premises, keys and locksmith, and however the ownership of the key and locksmith was and ownership i never filed a chapter. an entity has never filed a

chapter in my name. so, when i had significantly talked to some of the business entity that was nearby the residents, i did have assistance with [speaker not understood] came out and assisted me right away because she came and she verified that she removed the for sale sign. so, this is what i'm having problems with. i don't know if they're immigrants or if they're citizens, i really didn't care what color they were. they went inside the premises after i had sanctioned the premises legally and legitimately and unprofessionally, i knocked decently and they came to the door and they said something like they didn't speak english. so, i said, well, i'll have the police here the next day tomorrow. two officers arrived and then they popped up with a deed overnight and this is the same person which i spoke about number 7. so, i don't want to discuss that, but the main significance

is be professional. i have some money and criteria. just because i'm on transit, please excuse my transit. i will change to city card and performance. i want to make sure when someone has belongings, personal items, if it's vehicles [speaker not understood] extensive vehicles inside of a residence and they know it is my residence, please do not enter the residence. majority of the parcel i do have access on the castro area. my father has eight employees that have been there for substantial years. so, it will be determined and give me time for calendar, that's why i'm submitting information for forensicses. legal, business verbal forensic, okay, that i'm legitimate to enter a premises when i am speaking to the board of supervisors and the members in the business literate -- >> thank you, ma'am. thank you. >> any additional public comment on this item? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner borden.

>> i want to remind the public actually what we are considering today is the ncd, the neighborhood commercial corridor size use limit for nonprofit. so, we're not considering a particular project or a particular site of land. this would apply to the entire ncd so that's why it's not spot zoning. in terms of issues with the actual project, that will come forth when the project is advanced and, you know, it is vetted through the planning process. but i think this is a great, a great institution that we've been talking about in the abstract or in the reality that will be benefiting from that. and actually, going back to the information that i learned from street sense, it was very clear that in a vibrant street, those corridors have an anchor institution in the community that is nonretail, noncommercial because there have to be other ways to drive people to a street. that's one of the critical components that they found in all great vibrant streets

across the globe, was that anchor nonretail, noncafe type establishment. that was another reason that people came to the street and then took advantage of the amenities there. so, i think it's very clear that the foundation has a vital purpose in the community serving the community already and it makes a lot of sense to consolidate their services so i recommend to move approval. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> supportive also, but i have a few questions. i would assume that this zoning, of course, as was mentioned by commissioner borden, would apply to anywhere within the castro ncd. so, it could be used by some other nonprofit to find another space of over 4,000 square feet, but that also i would expect would have to come before us for conditional use. so, that is, i guess, a protection for any future instance that might come up. and then my second question, which is sort of in the same

relationship as that one, is if for some reason the particular nonprofits that are occupying it were to leave this site, then this would remain and there could be some other nonprofit that could come into there under the -- occupy the same space? >> to answer the second question, it could be another nonprofit. it could be any other use. and for your first question about -- it would go through a conditional use process and it would have to meet section 70.50, which is either neighborhood serving nonprofit and also could be like assembly, social service, child care, educational services. so, that's the intent of the ordinance. >> but, again, a conditional use on any other -- that might come before us? >> yeah, it would always come before the planning commission with the commission's authorization. >> okay. and then this presently is vacant, the particular space.

i mean, we're not considering a particular space, but there is a space that's going to be -- this is being zoned in particular for a particular use? >> right now we're just amending the ordinance. >> i know that. >> the san francisco aidses foundation has a particular space they're looking at. >> a particular space they're looking at. >> 474 castro. >> okay, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm supportive also, but a similar question along those lines. the project that is driving this ordinance, it makes sense to do it on a district-wide level. it can occupy the ground floor or ground floor and upper floors? >> it's going to occupy -- let's see. it's going to occupy a single lease location -- with the single -- that 474 castro currently hold 10,000 square feet.

the project is still in the works, but they're potentially adding a third floor which would equal 15,000 square feet just approximately. so, it would be first and second and third and fourth. >> okay. so, then, we talk about keeping possibly the retail -- >> yeah, right now there is, there is blush a wine bar and the other business superstar video which i believe they lost their lease. >> kay. ~ okay. i think they're more serving kind of neighborhood serving. i wouldn't want kind of an office nonprofit on a ground floor. is there any encouragement to [speaker not understood] 4,000 square feet [speaker not understood]? >> the ground floor would have to be active use especially if they're going to get 5 foot additional height limit. i think the proposed use right now is going to be an art gallery with an open -- >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm very much in support of

it, but i'd like to keep it without the particular building. because i think we need to understand the issue on its own and non-building specific. i think the conditional use will give all the shape and forms which make an acceptable location for this type of use. what i'm interested in is that it's neighborhood serving nonprofit. and i appreciate the supervisor helping to allow the neighborhood to find a self-determining mechanism to have and track and support those uses which are appropriate for that location. and i think that is the strength of doing something which is missing. it speaks to consolidating health or health related services which are very hard to come by, particularly when they are scarce and one location in one neighborhood. i am very much in support of the legislation as it stand, but i would like to encourage all of us to look at it more as policy and legislation rather than applying it to a particular project, which we don't know anything about.

>> director ram. >> thank you. i just wanted to remind the commissioners and the public in particular there might be some confusion, this doesn't change any height limit. it doesn't change any setback requirements or anything. it's only the size of the use within the building. so, this does not allow any user on that street to build a taller building or bigger building. it's simply the size of the use within that building. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. within that context, then, would nonprofits be allowed on the first floor in the first place if they are under 4,000 square feet? i don't know what the base zoning allows or doesn't -- >> in terms of nonprofit there is nothing in the planning code that would prohibit a nonprofit on the ground. there would have to be an active use that would meet the relevant requirements of the planning code. i believe the proposal they have now would have an active use on -- >> i don't care about the actual building, but in terms

of the district itself, nonprofits are allowed, aretionv on the? ~ aren't? >> a nonprofit is just your status, you know, in the eyes of the irs. you could have a nonprofit retail store technically. function as a retail use. just because it's nonprofit doesn't mean that it's office use. i believe they will have walk-in functions when they offer medical services as well. it's been described. so, they're a neighborhood-serving retail or active uses that are also -- could be nonprofit. >> then a follow-up question to that. if for some reason a use that gets a conditional use under this provision leave, so the conditional use for that use continues to go with the space.