>> this is the regular meeting for the sentences co planning commission. let me remind everyone to turn your cell phones off. [roll call] commissioner borden is expected. items proposed for a continuance, your printed calendar shows a proposal for a

continuance to march 17, 2011. since the project sponsor has requested a further continuance to may 19, 2011, staff reports that request. from 34 to 36 pleasant street. commissioners, with that, i'm not aware of any other item proposed for a continuance. public comment on items proposed for a continuance? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i would move to continue item number one to may 19. and items 21 and b to the same day. commissioner moore: second.

>> on the motion for a continuance -- [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners. those items are continued as we have discussed. items one and two are being pushed to may 19. thank you. commissioners, you are now on your consent calendar. this item is concluded and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote.

unless a member of the commission or the public requests. item number three. 42 24th street. it will allow a walk up facility within the commercial district. commissioners, following any public comment that would automatically remove this item from consent calendar, this matter is in your hands. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner moore: moved to approve. >> on the motion for approval --

[roll call vote] thank you, commissioners. the item has been approved. you are now at commissioners questions and matters. commissioner moore: i like to acknowledge staff winning the urbanism award on the better streets plan. it is a highly coveted awards program. there are roughly 12 awards being given. under the category of the building, they have won this award in that category. that is a great achievement, and it puts an francisco on the mat for how we maintain our infrastructure.

we are very happy about that, and if anybody wants to look at that, i would be happy to hand it out. regarding an item that is on the latter part of our calendar day, i have several calls from people in the community hoping and wondering, asking if sfgovtv will be broadcasting the 6:00 hearing. many people cannot come. and there is a great deal of interest by the public to hear the discussion between the two commissions. i hope we get a positive nod on my question. >> commissioner moore, generally, it broadcasts of this commission for as long as we are

in session. and this will be in session as part of that joint hearing, so i can only affirm that we will be broadcast. commissioner moore: i am sure there will be many happy people. commissioner antonini: i like to a acknowledge a couple meetings i have had. i met with ben golden, a group that is involved with the booker t. washington presidio project. i met with some of the neighborhood groups that are concerned about the project. they have both been very good meetings. representatives of united paragon and other companies involved in the executive park will be involved with us and a couple of weeks.

i know there is a lot of concern, and keeping business in san francisco. i was very happy to hear that mayor lee has proposed to limit the payroll tax. they had been san francisco -- correct me if i am wrong, it is around $300 million that contributes to the budget of san francisco per year. we can find ways to eliminate that spending. it was good to hear that there

is thought along those ways. commissioner fong: it seems we had a similar week. i met with neighbors on the project as well as to a tour of the executive park. going out and seeing the proposed project has been beneficial. commissioner miguel: i have met with people regarding heights street as well as a coalition of groups. basically a chinatown haughty- line extension -- t-line

extension and social equity projects. it was very enlightening. commissioner antonini: you tweaked my memory. i met with groups on lansing in the last week. thank you. >> commissioners, we can move forward to the directors' report. and a review of the past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i want to a knowledge of the staff on the better streets plan award for urban assembly. he is a very prestigious award. i want to thank staff and the

project manager on that and congratulate them on the award. i wanted to spend a couple of minutes updating the commission on the status of the governor's proposed legislation regarding development agencies. this is information as of yesterday. the governor had initially proposed eliminating the tax increment financing function which is the primary funding for redevelopment agencies. the cities along with nine other cities proposed an alternative measure to that. a budget trailer legislation submitted by the state's finance department required the elimination of the

redevelopment agency's by july 1. it would require them to be dissolved by july 1 of this year. and we will cease all activities other than paying out contractually obligated funding. that would happen immediately. if this bill is passed this week or next week, the governor could make that some measure next week. it would go into effect immediately. it would require redevelopment agencies to cease operations by july 1 of this year. besides the existing redevelopment plan, there is some provision that would allow some plans that have reached a certain completion to continue.

it is not clear what that means. it allows for what is called a successor agency that would carry out the fiduciary responsibilities of redevelopment agencies. mainly to pay the bills under contract that they have agreed to pay. specifically regarding to the planning department, there are obvious ways that we will have to get involved. because of the time frame only been three months away, if this goes forward, we have to plan for this as a contingency. we would likely be asked to take over the planning and entitlement functions within the redevelopment areas. it would add substantially to the portfolio of the department overnight. it clearly has budgetary and

staffing implications. it is under the jurisdiction of the agency. within the short time frame we have, we would likely be putting forward legislation. we obviously don't have time to create dunning for all of those sites. there will have to be legislation put forward that as far as i can tell will have to be affective july 1 for the city's planning code to take over the controls. that is the status as i know it. the city has tried to put forward an amendment that would allow some of the project areas to continue. so far, that amendment has not been taken out by any legislature. there are still discussions going on in sacramento. as i mentioned, fred blackwell

has agreed to come and give information on this if you like. it might be something you are interested in in a few weeks to have a more detailed discussion with him about. that concludes my presentation. commissioner moore: thank you for updating us on that. it is a project i would be greatly concerned of because it needs a lot of support and a lot of proactive moving it into realizations. there are others that would perhaps stand on their own if it addresses a different kind of market. i know secretary avery will shoot me a look that i should not engage in discussions, but i

would like to discuss if it is also to engage in a slightly more robust discussion about the pros and cons. the discussion is difficult to have because the newspapers report on things that none of us would be very happy that would occur here. there is a large discussion to be had about the subject. i would support your suggestion that we engage in that discussion. commissioner antonini: i wonder if there has been any blocked by the governor that you are aware of. he made some statements differentiating between what he feels is the use of redevelopment funds. if there was any thought of perhaps approaching these uses

differently, either in redevelopment agencies or those that are eliminated in successor entities to really not use this type of funding that he feels is an appropriate, just thinking in that regard. commissioner borden: our own delegation to the legislature, senator laneno -- where have the talks and then with our legislative leaders? are they supportive? >> at the risk of having linda shut us down, there have been many discussions over the weeks. >> before you ask another question, let me just say, i believe there is enough direction here to calendar a discussion. i really don't want you to get

into a discussion of an item that is not agendized. >> and it would be moved into the afternoon? >> and we are trying to shift a treasure island to the morning session. the team -- or if they have noticed it for a later afternoon eating -- meeting. president olague: it might be possible to schedule them both for the morning. >> it would be appropriate. president olague: i think it is critical that we discuss this, because i was privy to a panel discussion earlier today and i was informed of a project that i

did not really know where under redevelopment. whose future might be questionable. >> if we can pull that off, we will also have to check with mr. blackwell. we will do everything we can to try to take that happen. -- maketha that happen. president olague: i think it would be important to put it on the calendar because it is timely. >> could i have feedback on the just of this meeting with mr. blackwell? i think it is fruitless to talk about saving redevelopment.

i would like to know more about what kinds of projects -- president olague: we need to be informed of what is going to be effective. >> it might also be good if mr. shoemaker or somebody from the office was here. commissioner moore: contrary to some other commissions, to stay away from making this a right of the governor -- president olague: i think it is deeper than we even have a sense of, so we need to be proactive.

it is about budget, staffing, and these other things. commissioner moore: and priorities. >> now that we have clarified we are not having a discussion on that item -- [laughter] okay. thank you. commissioners, is there more on the board of supervisors? >> we made some changes in the department recently, iran will be spending some of his time -- aaron will be spending some time helping ann marie. he will be giving the report.

>> march 7 through 11, there were three items at the land use committee. it was a correction to the market and octavia plan. it would reflect the actions by the commission. the planning commission approved it on april 5, 2007. prior to the action by the board, some of the pages of the zoning ordinance were admitted. it was consistent with the commission's actions. it would correct this error. the committee recommended approval of the ordinance to the full board. the second was the upper filmore neighborhood districts changes. it would remove the current prohibition against new restaurants in this commercial

district. under the proposed restaurants, they would be allowed by c.u. at that time, you recommended approval but with recommendation. you also respectfully requested that they continue public outreach. the supervisors worked with the department and the appropriate neighborhood groups. they handled legislation in two ways. the legislation also amended to specify that the commission considered restaurants in this area, they consider whether or not they use a lunchtime service or daytime uses. with thsese amendments, the land use committee recommended

approval of the ordinance. this one would amend article for to lemonade confusion as to when requirements must be met with increasing consistency in the way impact fees are a minister. you heard this item on december 16 of last year. the mayor has amended it to include suggestions from the mayor's office of housing and the comptroller's office. there was an un-codified section. the land use recommended approval for the full board. the board heard the area plan waiver criteria for affordable housing. this would amend the existing waiver.

as part of the proposed ordinance to amend visitation amendments. the planning department recommended the legislation be approved as proposed. instead, the commission made a respect for recommendation that supervisor maxwell continue working with the parties on these issues. the board approved the ordinance on the first reading. there were three introduced last week. the first one was from supervisor campos regarding the authorization of historiit is me sign. this amendment would prevent a formula retail pet supply stores in the district. which changed the name of the subject to prevent prohibited use. an ordinance amending administrative code for

commanding -- administration approval. unlike the other ordnances, this does not amend the planning cut. we would like guidance on whether or not you like a hearing on this item so you can make recommendations to the board. because it is a change to the administrative code, we are under a 30-day time limit. it would have to be heard pretty soon. and a supervisor elsbernd requested a hearing on park merced. i believe scott will be doing the board of appeals. if i could get some direction on that, we can bring it back to you if you choose.

commissioner antonini: this apparently is an extension or new ban on formal retail specific to certain types of stores. regardless of the entity, is this something that would first come before the planning commission? what is going on here? >> has a 90-day time limit. commissioner antonini: we would have jurisdiction before they did? >> correct. >> the mayor did introduce an amendment to the advent of -- admin code today. to extend approval of large tourist hotels and condominiums. there is only a 30-day window.

we are trying to get a sense of whether you want to have that come before you. sounds like we will wait to do that. >> of the board of appeals met last night, they had a lengthy calendar. the first was the jurisdiction request for building permits that were issued pursuant to conditional use. the conditional uses were for parking and for a dwelling unit merger. the appeal was timely filed. the board of appeals rejected it because it does not have jurisdiction on building permits. those are supposed to be addressed by the board of

supervisors. the jurisdiction and was to have the matter put before the board of appeals. there was an interesting debate about the legal technicalities of the charter and how it might apply to the board of appeals. the board ultimately continued the item to get additional information. the issues raised were related to a retaining wall. this was part of the project and there were revisions to that on building permits that were submitted last summer. the building permits are not required to be submitted at the time the conditional use is submitted. it can be weeks or months, sometimes years after word. sometimes years after word. -- afterwards.