number of staff -- the appropriate number of staff to cover these. an example of something that was written regarding the sidewalks and what not and how english changed in reference which is now being made it to the dtw sections. for information about compliance, the context of the bureau of st. use and mapping. isn't this still a planning condition? shouldn't that language be different? i know when i've called st. used and mapping, and you kind of

don't get anywhere, if i could be polite. >> our conditions of approval have been in communication and in no that they're changing the language relationships with enforcement. -- they have been building good relationships with enforcement. >> the intent is to note the agency that is actually responsible for enforcement on there. is this a condition of your project, the actual enforcement agencies -- but me give you an example, the things that go on near where my office is that i called them about. do you know what the answer is? we have to see it when we get there. they can get there the day, the

day after the outcome of the day after that, which -- by which time the thing you're complaining about is gone and it won't show up for another week. then you call them again. that is something to be worked on. >> i wanted to just add what quick comment. -- one quick comment. i am really glad you are doing this. i would like to raise the bar on the process. this is very inconsistent and it is difficult for those who are not really doing this as a living and even for those that do, it is still very difficult. there should be a style change and i am saying there should be style sheets force of middle and

they are consistent across the board for what you are looking at. -- there should be style sheets for the metal. you can set the standards. i had them and what told you to put them in your library as example and this really goes well with the commission. this is the time to take the physical part of your process and create a style sheet in which people can make a better effort to document what their contents are and then we can tell the judge and not the second apples and potatoes or apples and oranges or whatever. >> i would like to give some compliments to the department on this one. this is a long time coming and i think this is an excellent job

in town -- this is an excellent job. starting in it next month and working through the first few months, i am sure that you will come up with some tweaks yourself. i am a firm believer in emphasizing the early presentation of materials and getting things clear in the early stages of any development and it makes things much easier as the golan and this is something that has not always happened at least in san francisco. i appreciate your attendance as standardization. this is a lot easier for the public and for the development community and certainly for the commission. if we look for what we need in the same position with the same standard wording and

understanding what the form is doing and the reason for it. so, having the board for a time became a bit confusing, particularly for the public. the comments that were made regarding form-base code, i tried to do a study on it. it has the advantages of showing the examples. this is very simple for people to understand. i have found in on planning issues when you do the equivalent of the codes, the people who are putting it together start to understand

better what they're doing because the practical example is in front of them. that would be of great benefit to the san francisco public. sometimes, the same is the coordination and the department. i think that has improved and hopefully it will do more so in the future. there are many of the city's website that are in the same stage. the idea of this of metal that

commissioner more was talking about and using style sheets perhaps to clarify that, we get the submissions from professionals that are absolutely ridiculous. they look like they have been drawn in a grammar school, maybe a grammar school using a computer. there is still standardization. i'm not saying someone who's trying to do a rear addition should be doing the same things and building a 10 story office building. you don't make those comparisons logically. within certain types of submissions, there is no reason they cannot be standardized and my experience that once you set the style sheets up and said what the department actually wants by example, this should

show the diagrams, show an example. if they go down to the department and the planners without about, said it up. -- sent it back. it will only take a few months. this will make a lot easier for everyone. i don't think in my mind that we reject sufficient materials in the department touching from what some say in the commission. >> thank you for your comments. >> this is helpful as we move forward. it does make sense to come back early next year and give you an update.

i do think that the web site is an important part of this. this is part of the action plan. one of the grants we got was for a design guidelines and actually changing the guidelines. one of the things that will happen is that in addition to making the actual website is using social media such as facebook and twitter and to get the word out. there is a budget. there was reference to the general plan. the very early stage in the process because this is in

written form it allows us to reference this early on which is what we do. we will reference the code amendments and the code provisions and the better streets plan and the neighborhoods that have neighborhood-specific guidelines, we can reference those in that letter. wheat we have a range of provisions that apply to any given site. that is one of the great advantages of that early read. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that will put us on item 84 case number 2,006.0431 -- that will put us on item number 8 2006.0431c. >> this is for mixed use

development 11 stories tall. on there is ground floor retail space. the conditional use authorization approved by the commission to allow the building to have stracke access and of st. parking. when the project was approved, the commission directed the project sponsor to addressed two design concerns. the concerns are as the avalos, increasing his issued and creating more interest in the design. the project sponsor has decreased the windows. although not required by the

commission, the project sponsor move the location to the eastern portion of the building to the western portion. this would allow the project sponsor to increase the commercial area as well as the garage opening. at this point, the staff and a project sponsors seeking feedback regarding the design and the design response to the commission's concerns. >> is there any public comment or does the project sponsor wish to comment on this? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have the same information

which is in your hand out there. i would like to give a formal presentation. >> is there any public comment? it's not, public comment is closed. >> i was not able to clearly see what i was supposed to look at. switching the garage is probably a good idea because we don't want two doors next to each other. the only comment and would make is that the drawings are much too small to be understandable. i see some dark lines on the new edition which indicates that there will be some additional devices which will probably

make the side more articulated. however, i reviewed this because the drawing is too small to really appreciate that particular move. this would really fall in the future discussion and we can ask perhaps part of the board and i don't have any objections. this is more in reference to our previous conversation and this is really not a meeting the task at hand. >> in response to that comment, i would like to direct your attention to this elevation. this is the top of the eighth floor, ninth, 10th, and 11th

which i think better illustrate the overall decisions there in terms of sunshade and so forth. >> i don't have a section on my drawing which slows the existing condition where we are going to, that is harder to understand. what we are commenting on, i see some sections through the window and this is the old section versus the new section and i don't want to be labor the point and we are looking at a more positive -- on this building overall. i would use a larger scale and perhaps you could protect 1 on the screen that we can see but i am fine. >> thank you >> thank you. i think that the changes address some of the things that i brought up when this was approved. the one issue that i have is

typically in the past, usually the setback elements as she went back higher on the building had similarities to the rest of the building and i noticed a originally this was a lot more glazing on the ninth, 10th, on the 11th floors. i really like the lower part of the building and even though the argument is made that you only see this from the street, you see from other buildings in san francisco the entire building. as much as possible where the upper part of the building can fit in and blend in with the rest of the building, it is helpful aesthetically in my opinion and obviously you always treat the capital and a bit different than you do the body.

>> that will put us at general public comment. at this time, members of the public will address the commission with respect to items that are in the purview of the commission but not on agenda items. each member of the public can address the board for up to three minutes. >> is there any public comment? if not, general public comment is closed. >> that will put us on your regular calendar and we have an item that was pulled off, item four, case number 2010.0766z.

>> good afternoon. the case before you as far as the zoning map amendment located at 2154 sacramento street. it proposes to rezone the lot from the presidential mixed but density district to the adjacent upper fillmore street commercial district. we requested for the commission to initiate legislation that would amend the zoning map and to schedule a public hearing for adoption on february 10th, 2011 or later. currently, this is by the san francisco housing authority and by this time, the department recommends approval.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, president. i am barbara smith with the housing authority. as i am sure you are aware of, we are always in need of funds to serve our low income households with our aging properties and limited resources. the authority has very few opportunities to generate additional revenue to help improve the properties and where we do have those opportunities, that is a unique opportunity that we have where we want to maximize the benefit of selling this property. the property is adjacent to the upper filmore neighborhood commercial district and we are asking to rezone the property to that use.

hud has approved the sale of this property. and we understand that it is important for the neighborhood to be in fall within the project as any project is to be built on this property and there would be for a specific proposal full community input and environmental review and project review. we ask that you consider approving this request. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have one speaker card. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

the board directors has expressed concern about a rezoning taking place in the absen rezoning taking place in the absence of any defined projects. there is a project sponsored who has some idea but they prefer to remain quiet and they are not discussing the project until the zoning is approved. this makes me nervous. and it is entirely conceivable, i am prepared to believe that there is a good project in mind. on the other hand, we have no

information and i think this should be a very good case for the planning commission to establish a precedent that a rezoning of a single lot absence of a proposed project and brought to you the input is not a good idea and should not be brought forward. i ask you to either reject this or continued it until there is a chance to review the proposed project that calls for this at rezoning. thank you.

p.u.d.s'. we've done this quite protectly. for me given the location of this lot what is the appropriate use of this lot? does this current zoning which is lesser density makes sense. it sounds like from reading through the code and the different even though housing would be permitted in the current zoning, you can actually build more housing with the nced zoning which is ironic because you think the r zoning would support more housing. given the location next to it, very tall housing development, you know, it seems to me that this lot is a challenging lot

for a lot of reasons in that regard and it would make a lot of sense for there to be -- this lot to be rezoned as ncd because of the location and the fact that across the street there's a lingerie and there are also commercial as well. so given the proximity to the n.c.d. and the location it seems to fle that standpoint looking at the larger n.c.d., in general that would seem a very good use for that lot. in terms of the project, any project that would come forward would go through all this typical project approval, meaning somebody could have whatever ideas that we want because we would rezone this lot and the project would be our preferred project or the project that would ultimately be approved. i'm not as concerned from that level because at this point all we're doing is looking at the best and highest use for this particular land and actually today we're only looking at

initiating the zoning and maybe the woman with the housing authority could talk very generally about the types of proposals or potential thoughts that people have expressed to them. tult matly, their job is to try to raise money to generate more housing that the public housing that the city can provide and if this helps them to do that, it still doesn't guarantee the potential sponsor any money at the end of the day but at least in short-term it helps the city advance forward and to me it seems like a very good land use given the proximity of the sight into the n.c.d. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: do you know the difference how many unit could be placed on this sight? >> it allows one unit per 800

square feet. and the n.c.d. allows 600 feet. and r.m.-1 allows for one unit regardless of the unit. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i realized this was only an initiation and that answers some of my concerns and it appears as if this is going to be sold will be able to use the funds for other redevelopment projects because arkt tech churlly while the towers serve a very good purpose, architecturally they're probably not our best product. i was hoping that we wouldn't see the same. this sounds like it may be commercial. it may be residential. i'm not really sure. but it sounds like the process is going to allow us to and we're only initiating the

zoning change. i would hope that as we move forward, we will have more information before we actually approve the zoning change as to some ideas about what might be built there. it may be just a sale. there may not be a project yet. i don't really know. i'd like to know a little bit when we goat that point. president miguel: commissioner moore? commisioner moore: this is one of those types of lots where one would require guidelines which particularly address turning off a corner and turning a way to transition into the next zoning. that is the one thing i would be interested in. and you also in this corner have a very difficult bus stop which is very crowded, heavily used and that bus stop really doesn't look. so this would affect frontage of the building on the rezoned lot. but i think if we're moving and supporting the rezoning we

could spend a lot of attention to areas that is a drenstial, institutional neighborhood and that sensitivity needs to be very clearly shown to us before we move ahead with visualizing of the building or anything else. >> if i may, just to quickly respond to commissioner sugaya's comment, the 40 square feet area, 40 feet would be allowed in up ther fillmore, n.c.d. would be seven years. >> perhaps later could we have some information on the -- we have that number now but like the height and that kind of stuff. >> the height is not being reclassified so it would stay at a 40-foot height limit. president miguel: the

resslution itself when you read it -- resolution its it provides the zoning math amendment. although i fully understand his concerns in this regard. it will be a public hearing regarding it as it should be i hope although there's no way of knowing that the redevelopment agency can push any poe tennesseetial developer to participate but most certainly considering the actual lot itself, commissioner moore's remarks regarding it as well, commissioner sugaya's informational requests, it's going to be snag will take a good deal of public and commission consideration as to what ends up there.