anuncer: this is a man who almost learned to walk

a rehab center that almost got built... by people who almost gave money. almost gave. how good is almost giving? about as good as almost walking. >> commissioner moore. >> here. >> present. >> here. >> commissioner miguel. >> here. >> thank you commissioners. first item on the calendar, items proposed for continuance. amendment to planning code by adding various sections including articles 7 and 8 to the planning code to february

17, 2011. item number two is case 2010 for 2774-2776 proposed for continuance to march 3, 2011. item three, a, b and c for 353 san jose veaf proposed for continuance to march 17, 2011. item number four proposed for continuance to february 24, 2011. commissioners, with that i am not aware of any other item on your calendar that is being proposed for continuance. >> any public comment on items proposed for continuance? >> no. >> that's right. >> ok. item 11. i have just been informed is being proposed for continuance,

parking south of market and mission bay proposed for continuance to april 28th. >> yes, i spoke with supervisor kim's office. >> seeing no public comment, commissioners. commissioner miguel. >> i move items for continuance for the dates recognized. >> second. >> commissioner miguel, that would be inclusive of item number 11? >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioners, there are no comments on that motion. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you commissioners. those items are continued as we have discussed. commissioners, you are now at

commissioners questions. >> commissioner miguel. >> yes. during the past week i have worked with some people regarding the situation of the high speed rail that impacts mission bay as well as several people regarding cell phone antennas in the city. >> couple of things. i was reading in the paper about the america's cup and there was some type of presentation or whatever. i don't know if there are materials about that or maybe it is in the director's report. >> i would mention it later. but the department released the notice of preparation yesterday. so that was actually put out there was a discussion i attended with the media to

answer any questions about that. but the commission might want to take a look at that because it is a good overview of the projects. >> ok. thank you. secondly apparently they are going to make the midmarket eastbound traffic permanent after the experiment. and this is not going to require any type of environmental review, if we could look into that. >> more grassroot rumors in support of the america's cup. i understand many of the local organizations and other venues in the golden gate club are stepping in so it becomes even a larger event than what is only described by the america's cup. i am glad to hear that because it is a mutual engagement because we have a much richer

discussion on how to improve it. >> in this last week i was able to meet with one of the architects on the public safety building which is coming up in the future, although it won't be an item before us. it is a project for redevelopment. you know i think that we will be able to see the design and some of us will have meetings and be able to weigh in. i think it will be a very promising project and one that will be important. that was promising based on that meeting. i also had a meeting with the dean of a major institution here in san francisco who is in the process of looking to relobalingt to a new facility. we are hoping to keep them within san francisco. it is promising.

we are having reason to believe we will be able to find a site that will work for them. i am optimistic about that. and finally in terms of other issues the facebook decision as most have read about to relocate to the sun micro camp susunfortunate in one regard because it was reported 50% of their employees take public transit, bike or walk to the campus. it will be impossible at the sun micro campus from what i heard. i bet a high percentage of their employees live in san francisco. you never know. things may happen in the future but i think it would be great if companies like that took a look to the north where most of their companies are or want to be. >> last week we mentioned the

america's cup. a few commissioners had a list of hearings we would like to schedule. we will work with staff to try to come up with a reasonable calendar to hear more policy issues. maybe starting in the summer we can start calendaring that stuff. >> commissioners, if there are no other comments we can move on to director's reports and director's announcements. >> thank you, linda. in the interest of time i want to make an announcement today just to repeat that next wednesday evening, the 6th, at 6:00 p.m. i will be hosting a

public discussion about the housing element 6 p.m., wednesday the 16th at the department. to remind you all the latest draft of the housing element is out and it is available online. i think you have copies. the purpose of next week's meeting is to facilitate a discussion about the most recent changes. there will be an informational hearing on february 24th and action tentatively scheduled for march 24th. i think that is it for me unless there are other discussions. >> this week there were no items at the land use committee but there were a couple of the full board i want to share with you. the first is an ordinance that the commission initiated on

november 4 last year that would generally ensure that developments consisting with existing developments provide relief for parking -- you also when we heard it, you recognized it did not benefit from a substantial process to inform people of pending fee changes and recommended applying all of the controls upon adoption of the ordinance and providing an exemption from certain fees for preexisting projects. after last week's land use hearing we discovered a surprise. entitlements for the project at 299 market street have not been secured. it was often called the hole in the ground and was a subject of much negotiation with the then

district supervisor, community groups and a project sponsor until an agreement was reached. all parties were surprised to learn last week the party would be subject to the ordinance upon adoption disrupting the community developer agreement. this week amendments were introduced that would exempt it from the legislation that the agreement would not be disturbed. like the current fee agreement it was drafted such that the developer would have a set window for completing their entitlements and if all were not secured within two years, the full impact of the ordinance would apply as well. this week the board passed the ordinance on first reading and the board also this week heard eight pieces of legislation concerning new city policy governing the use of the finance districts and the construction of a pilot project

. why you did not consider this specific legislation you did consider the enabling legislation last year on july 2, having two recommendations. recommended the board seek additional funding to secure a second pilot program and you also recommended that the establishment of the committee to ensure that ifd would not deplete the general fund. the planning department has been actively involved in the process since you heard the ordinance this summer. this week the board unanimously approved all eight pieces of the legislation on first reading, the property owners in the area also voted on that tuesday and their vote was counted on the board. there was 100% approval by all property owners. all that awaits is the second

reading and the mayor's signature. the city will have created the first ifd in the state. this week i also wanted to share an ordinance introduced that would amend the planning code having to deal largely with restaurant controls and increase the maximum size for small self service restaurants and the minimum size for large self service restaurants and it would require that certain other provisions including removing a prohibition on on site food preparation in retail coffee stores. that will be before you within 90 days for your consideration. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> could you answer for me on the legislation will that help

in clarifying conflicting code language which we have talked about a lot? we have so many restaurant definitions, whatever they are all, that makes it difficult and not really sensitive enough for the issues in front of us. will this particular legislation help with that? >> we haven't received it for analysis but it appears it will simplify and ease some of the processes for these types of restaurants. it does not decrease the number of definitions for restaurants but staff will be reviewing it and it may be part of our recommendation when we bring it before you. >> thank you. then we can comment on it at that time. thank you. >> the board of appeals met last night. the board of appeals overturned the approval and denied the

permit. they had an adoption of findings. the board adopted the findings. now the permit holder will have a 10-day period to file a request. others are advertising signs, permits that sought removal of general advertising signs. the appeals were filed to allow replacement of those signs. under the planning code you cannot replace a general advertising side. interest to note on one of the cases it was a sign company that filed the appeal. and they had filed the permit to remove the sign. they called the department of building inspection had a final inspection done and then sought so appeal the permit because they realized they made a mistake and did not want to remove the sign. and the board voted to uphold the permits in those cases so the signs cannot be replaced

and the department is represented by daniel schneider who did an excellent job, undefeated at the board of appeals. thank you. >> thank you. historic preservation commission did not meet this week. if we can move forward, item number eight. the governor's proposal. >> thank you, linda. several asked about this issue. it has been in the media many times. we prepared the memo working with redevelopment agency staff. to be specific what the governor proposed is not eliminating agencies but the funding mechanism for redevelopment agencies. as you know tax increment is the primary way the agency funds most of their activities.

it would affect the san francisco redevelopment agency and the treasure island development authority. there is little doubt that if that funding mechanism goes away and is not replaced there would be an impact to do these city's project. the primary use of tax increment is for infrastructure and for affordable housing. about half of the redevelopment agency is used to provide affordable housing in the redevelopment areas as you know the redevelopment areas have a higher percentage than the inclusionary. iñ the other uses that the agency uses these funds for is for small business support, loan

programs, and support for small businesses primarily. as i have said, the primary use is for affordable housing and infrastructure. what it is not clear how yet if there is a replacement or what the specifics of the governor's proposal because there is no legislation yet. the governor simply proposed this in his budget address and has been a discussion in the city and across the state about this issue and i know last says the mayor has been in discussion with his counterparts certain other large cities across the state. it is spknown that the use of te findings and redevelopment is somewhat different in the cities of california. large cities have often used it for redevelopment of formals industrial sites.

splosh forma-- formal industria. there is not a whole lot beyond the memo that i can tell you because there is some lunch on non stand there is no specific legislation. the mayor has asked france to work with his counterparts in other areas and look at some alternatives that will not totally eliminate this but look at other ways of solving the budget issue. i will close unless you have any questions. >> there are excellent memos from staff and also from mr. blackwell from redevelopment.

if there was a change or elimination of redevelopment, would we go back to the old zoning controls that are in those areas and they don't have an answer. the other question is, and that is a pre-existing redevelopment projects that might have been voted on that have not begun yet. the other thing that i think the distinction that the governor made recently is contrasting some kinds of redevelopment with others and my understanding as was pointed out just now is that redevelopment should pay for infrastructure, affordable housing, and affordable uses.

we have used redevelopment in the right way and there are some locations where the funding is going back to find a privately- owned structures, which i think is probably something that might be well examined and to make a distinction between the types of redevelopment and what use is our most beneficial. >> i think that one of the interesting questions, since the increment beyond the base level is used within the area, there has always been a concern on my part that the and the rest of the city's general fund suffers because it is not being used for other projects, for example.

i would imagine that the agencies around the state and the cities are undertaking some kinds of studies now to show what the economic benefits are and the return of tax dollars and that kind of thing. >> i think that as part of the analysis. the full increment does not go back into the district. i don't even remember the percentage but some goes into the general fund and some goes to this district. this is close to ensure that a project would happen. that is the way it is described. my experience is that let is particularly true on sites where

the infrastructure needs are so great. there is an argument to limit that they would not likely happen without some public investment in infrastructure. clearly, the committees have used this in a different way. that is part of the discussion going on. >> if we can be kept abreast of anything that might be going on in that regard. >> the weekly news flashes from the weekly -- association and i get real estate lot and redevelopment law updates on some of the largest firms in san francisco. the commissioner will send them to those who are interested.

>> in his final paragraph of the memo which talks about the tax increments and the -- from redevelopment in 2011, i guess this is a projection because he uses that year and he might have meant 2010. the increase in property taxes generated by redevelopment, only 6 million or 4% went into administration. about 94 million went to pay off the indebtedness of these increments and it another went into the general fund. presumably, this is very beneficial if you assume that some of these things would have never been killed. this is just the increase in the property-tax is, not necessarily talking about the sales taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes that go to the city and state of

california. >> i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. seeing 9, public comment is closed. >> you are now on general public comment. -- seen none, public comment is closed. with respect to this category, the public address you up to three minutes. keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. >> that afternoon, commissioners. >> that would be the next item.

this is just general public comment and so it relates to items not on the calendar. >> is there any public comment. >> now you are on public comment for agenda items for the public hearing has been closed. at this time, members of the public who wish to address the commission on an item that has been viewed in which members of the public are allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. the only item on calendar is item number 94 mission street on the certification of the final environmental impact report. >> is there any comment on the

certification of the environmental impact reports? >> item number94350 mission street. certification for the final eir. -- at item number 9 for 350 mission street. >> this poses demolition of an existing four-story building containing office space and retail uses and construction of a new 24 story 50 foot tall building containing

approximately 340,000 square feet. the uses are approximately 6,500 feet of retail space. approximately 23,500 feet of subterranean parking and open space. a copy of the draft eir is before you and it was published on september 15th, 2010. public hearing was held on october 21st. the public comment period closed in november 2nd, 2010. i would like to read into the record and direct the attention to a letter submitted today. the initial study in the

appendix, a key boxes were erroneously marked in the checklist. this does not change the pleasures of the eir and is considered accurate. we are here to answer any questions. the valuation -- the evaluation of the issues contained in the eir would result in unavoidable environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a significant level through transportation by project instructions and the planned transit center with a the result of -- in nearby streets, transit service,