opening in san francisco. i know there are concerns that have arisen since we conceived that legislation and it would be worthwhile having that discussion and looking at all the ramifications. commissioner sugaya: i would like to support commissioner borden on that. it's partially based on an article i read that had to do with concerns in new york city about the proliferation of branch banks, in this case in neighborhood areas. and the fact they did not have a mechanism to address those issues, so i would like to have something before us to discuss. commissioner borden: maybe we

did in calendar that with the very specific pet store of legislation. i imagine that will come to the commission, some maybe that's a day to have that discussion. commissioner moore: i want to express my support for what the commissioner borden is saying. i have seen personally one of the most unusual combinations in formula banking and retail just minutes ago where you walk into a starbucks and on the other side of the starbucks, you are complemented by full set of banking services provided by wells fargo. i thought that was a little bit over the top. it speaks to some of the concerns expressed by members of the public. i think it's going a little bit too far. president olague: wanted to mention of a couple of things -- four weeks ago we had the

conversation -- i think it was a follow-up meeting where people were invited and i understand there was a good discussion. is there going to be a follow-up to that? >> nothing is scheduled right now. staff is working on the housing element. once you adopt the housing element today, we're happy to work on that. [laughter] president olague: on one of our monday meetings, we will check in on that. i know there was a list of things they wanted staff to look at and possibly bring back to us for amendments. i wanted to get the status on that. the census, will be scheduling -- we should be scheduling a hearing or discussion on the senses. -- on the census. maybe there'll be some

questions about an advance so she does not have to come here without that information. as commissioner moore mentioned, the vacancy rate, that would be an interesting thing to have. i would also like to discuss the shift in demographics in areas like south of market and some of those districts. i always think in terms of electoral districts. district 6 and district 9, particularly. those are the main things i wanted to follow-up on. we should look at the calendar because we're starting a little bit behind on some of these hearings. after may, we should start scheduling some of these policy discussions here. like the formula of retail, the census, these other meetings are

more community meetings with staff. in the past, we have mentioned tourism and there are other ones we could catch, start catching up on. i was interested in this twitter discussion. it led me to think a little bit about manufacturing and some of these artists and type businesses we're seeing -- are disentitled businesses we're seeing in the city. -- artisan businesses we're seeing in the city. where are the jobs for people in certain communities -- i was just wondering what the state of manufacturing is. that conversation -- maybe job development -- trends and work- force development in san francisco.

vice-president miguel: and the formula retail discussion, i would be very interested in knowing as far as financial services are concerned whether the city attorney has ever given any way in on definitions as to waive the code is written. i think that's extremely pertinent. it would be interesting to know what the city and 30 -- what the city attorney's interpretation of that is. i don't think there's anything this commission could do without it. as far as the comments on the vacancy rate, i get confused by seeing figures all over the place and i have yet to see a definition or methodology by which those figures are put together. i do not know how that's counted.

i don't know if that's directly from the census figures and whether it is something that we rang the bell for times on four different days and we sent out to pieces of mail and no reply, therefore must be vacant. i don't know what the criteria is for considering something vacant. without that, the statistics are meaningless to me. i think there is a great deal of actual fact that has to be gotten into. i am not disputing the number, i just have no basis for believing it. president olague: we can move forward -- >> good afternoon, everyone.

i'm still not quite used to this early starting time. i want to mention a couple of things brought up today -- i have a call into at&t to ask what the implications are for their plans given their acquisition of t-mobile and i will get back to you on that. we have talked about how to move forward with a plan of sort with the carriers. the carriers to have a five-year plan they submit to us. but what seemed clear to us and -- is that we should try to break that down to get more immediate example of what all of the carrier's plans are so we can see how they overlap. we are working on that. we're working on a memo right now that is on my desk for review and we will hopefully get that to you next week. i also wanted to mention -- i

will send you the link the e- mail called "the san francisco travel now." they submitted their annual report on tourism statistics. your comment reminded me of that. it is interesting to look at the number of tourists from inside the country as opposed to outside or those who are here for conventions or personal vacations. it's interesting to look at that information and get a picture of the folks out there coming to the city. i signed the memo yesterday that was prepared on the census. if you don't have it today, you will get it in the next day or two. the question of the definition of vacancies is a very good one. i have asked the same question and the memo doesn't address it. we will address that in the future and i think it's a good idea and will work with linda on scheduling a hearing.

>> years ago, we had a hearing and i don't and we got to the nature of our question. i don't think that is necessarily the source that should be invited to that discussion. >> i think that's it for me. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to report on the board of supervisors activities for planning and land use. i want to share a couple of ordinances that the land use commission this week. the first would require active uses on portions of fillmore street. this is a smaller ordnance requiring active uses on the ground floor only. you heard this on march 3rd and recommend approval with a couple of conditions. he recommended the definition of "active usage" expanded to include an outdoor seating areas and a new restaurant -- the self

service specialty food. since your planning commission hearing, the supervisor included both of your recommendations in to the ordinance. the land use committee recommended approval to the full board. the other ordinance is a larger, older piece of legislation seeking to revise parking, use controls, street frontage regulation and selected -- in selected areas to conform with policies from our recently adopted planning areas. all told, this proposed ordinance would amend or repeal 28 separate portions of the planning code. at the highest levels, this ordinance can be summarized by the following -- it would help to regulate building block by counting parking limits in neighboring commercial districts and the special use district. it would limit the dominance of brush -- the dominance of groszarages.

it establishes the ground floor controls, removes the parking minimum requirements for the market specialty's district, it would allow the zoning administrator to reduce parking when certain conditions are met and would apply the street frontage controls to the limited commercial uses and residential districts. it would also take with it the formula retell controls to make sure that applied in these areas and will allow awnings in the neighboring commercial district. it would allow usages that would be allowed on the ground floor of the nc3 district and allow limited corner commercial uses in high density residential districts. finally, it would add review procedures for all billings of 50 feet or more lead therm and rc districts.

you suggested over a dozen recommendations i will not go over right now, but you asked the staff work with the supervisor and his office on refining controls for snout houses, the houses where the grosz extends beyond the facade of the majority -- will garage extends beyond the facade. we have incorporated all of your recommendations and the land use committee recommends approval of this ordinance to the full board as well. at the full board, or three ordinances. the first is the final reading of the development impact sponsored by the marylandthere r you heard the ordinance on december 16th. there are changes recommended by the mayor's office of housing and the comptroller's office. among these changes were the recommendation of an unclassified section that would allow this year's adjustment of all of the fees for inflation.

otherwise we would miss our first step to adjust for inflation. that would happen within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance. the board made final the ordinance by passing it on its last reading. also before the full board on tuesday was a proposed ordinance to make corrections to the plan which would amend the zoning map to reflect the actions of this commission way back when you adopted the plan in 2007. after this action by the commission, the board and land use committee made some amendments to the octavia ordinance and at some point after the transmittal of the recommendation to the board and final action by the board, some pages of the zoning map ordnance where inadvertently omitted through -- although the board voted on the zoning maps that were consistent with your action with those missing pieces out of the ordinance, we needed to

follow up on that and make sure the maps mast -- map matched the blacklisting. this was heard by the board and approved on first reading this week. -- match map -- matt matched the block listing. an ordinance sponsored by supervisor farrell would remove block restaurants in the neighboring commercial district. the proposed restaurant would be allowed by conditional use of -- conditional use authorization. you recommended approval but recommended to also modified to allow the large fast-food restaurants. since your recommendations, the supervisors worked with the departments and merchants and labor groups. the supervisor amended the legislation in three ways. per your request, the ordinance includes large fast-food restaurants, second, the old legislation was amended to specify when this commission and

cigarettes rents in the future in this area, the commissions should consider whether bludgeon other daytime usages to limit the businesses that have no daytime act -- with these amendments, the board approved the ordinance this week and also on tuesday, there was an appeal of 795 forrester. this was a determination for these properties. the proposed project involves a subdivision of two lots into four and construction of three new single-family dwelling units on three of the new divided plots. no changes were proposed for the existing single-family on the last lot. despite arguments, the department maintained the position that follows -- number one, the presence of the project site in this seismic hazard

studies done does not automatically disqualify the project, which was one of their arguments. we also maintained the permit review process complies with state law and insurers hazardous soil conditions are adequately addressed, so it is ok to rely on that. 3, the standard recommendations not mitigation measures within the context of seqa and the project description with accurate because the use the physical conditions of the project at time environmental review was done which is a requirement. the board unanimously rejected the appeal and upheld the determination. lastly, as far as new ordinances or introductions, there was a hearing request this week by supervisor: on the neighborhood plan for the executive park area -- supervised cohen.

commissioner moor commissioner miguel: just a complement -- the department reviewing legislation makes commence to -- makes recommendations to this commission and on all, goes along with the because you know the code paps better than the supervisors do at time -- perhaps better than supervisors do at that time. not disparaging to the supervisors, but well over 90% of the department's recommendations, probably over 95% -- 100% in this case of the department's recommendations are actually accepted and incorpora shows we are on the same page and that is good. that is very, very good. commissioner antonini: thank you

for your report, as always. on the legislation, i assume we will be seeing that sometime in the future? >> only a new hearing request. commissioner antonini: hearings, but not introductions? i had questions about the part that dealt with retail on the corner and residential areas -- >> that was part of the consistent street frontage is. we did hear that earlier. it was quite a large ordinance but is now moving through the board process. thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night. there were three items that would be of interest to the planning commission. the first is that chase bank issue. separating the issues into two -- the first is the retail use issue in the board did decide would be department with our

interpretation of the code. which is not a new interpretation of the code. have applied this since 2004 when the retell controls first would into effect. the board voted to uphold the department's position. the second issue on the use the side, i spent about an hour with the appellant and we went through the plants and it is close to 4000. that's a concern for the department and we will make sure they comply with the plans which are showing use size of less than 4,000 feet. we have a disagreement with the appellants and what counts toward that use side in terms of an exterior corridor which we believe is not part of the use and the appellant argues it is. the appellant will have the ability to file a rehearing a quest on the board's appeal and there is a subsequent revision permit that addresses the walkup use.

they will be revising the plans -- we had approved it without the 312 notice. it did not require a conditional use for the walked up but they will be revising the plans to make that interior so it will not be a walk up use and will not require the section 312 use. the board declared correction last night to the department that they want building department and planning department to monitor the construction and insured does comply with the use size limitation and what the plans state. two other items that would be interesting -- 281 turk which authorized the building of a pharmacy. there was a lot of neighborhood opposition to this citing the negative impact of pharmacies in the district which has picked up the name pill hill. as the board had initially denied the application when it came to the adoption of findings, the decision changed and the permit was upheld.

there were hearing requests last night the will allow both parties to have counsel represent them threat a full hearing process. they will go back to hearings on that and the board will be able to have the benefit of attorneys briefing them from both sides. the last one is 731 commercial which was the appeal of a letter we had releasing suspension of the permits. we have been working diligently with the property owner and concerned neighbors to try to address issues that there may have been modifications to the building which is a potential historic resources and modifications may have been up -- may have been inappropriate. that item was continued until may to give official time to work with the neighbors. going back to chase, i appreciate the commission giving direction on how to move forward. i expressed to the appellant this is a legislative issue and i think with the benefit of having the commission's hearing, if the commission desires or

board of supervisor desires, there could be a legislative fix to this issue. thank you. commissioner sugaya: what is the cross street on turk? you can get it to me afterwards. president olague: if there is nothing else, we can move forward on the calendar. item four is on previous entitlements on 524 howard st.. >> good afternoon. i'm with planning staff. this informational item 40 pertains to a previous off site location and time limits granted to an office development at 524 howard st.. the project was approved in 1989 as a 24 story building with 200,000 square feet of office

space and 4,500 feet of ground floor retail space. the project sponsor did not pursue building permits that time the project received an extension on the entitlements in 1999 with a slight increase in the amount of office space. the project sub of -- subsequently received a site permit but they did not pursue any other permits or addenda and the project has been inactive since 2007. if they have not commence construction within 18 months, permits are subject to revocation. entitlements are not automatically revoked until such action at a public hearing. in march 2009, the commission adopted a policy regarding extension of entitlements for unbuilt office projects. the commission requested hearings on several specific projects including 524 howard. this requires no action by this commission, however you may wish us -- wish to give us feedback

on whether there should be a future public hearing to consider the revocation of other entitlements for this project. since 2005, the site has been used as a service parking lot. you have a request for a conditional use authorization to extend the two-year term for this parking lot. the action regarding the parking lot is unrelated to the office building and cut the mets. the office is free to take action on the parking lot as a separate interim use. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. commissioner borden: do we know anything about the developer of this property? it seems like 1989 until now is a really long time. >> we did attempt to contact the project sponsor through the council that most recently represented them, but have not heard any response to date. if the commission does which to formally schedule the hearing --

does wish to formally schedule a hearing for revocation, we will send out notices. commissioner borden: not the we are worried because there is tons in the pipeline, but is it currently counted against the allocation up there? if we were considering a vacation, it has been around since 1989. it seems a little bit timely to look at what is going on there and make sure somebody is not just holding on to entitlements that they are not going to do anything with. president olague: we should go ahead and calendar that for the next available date. give them a heads up on that. commissioner moore: i think given the fact that there have been some any code changes and other rules and regulations which have changed, including compatible height and bulk, i think it does not take an einstein to consider this not

extending any more. it needs to be redone. i am sure any previous commission would not take any offense. your kid would be in college now. this is too long a time. president olague: it is over 20 years. commissioner moore: everything has changed. i think we all agree to schedule and move on it. president olague: i forgot about public comment. we will get to it. commissioner sugaya: in the resolution that was attached, or the memo from mr. badner to us back in 2009, there is a series of comments on other properties they own on market, 350 bush, 500 pine, and 120 howard. perhaps since it has been a number of years we could get some updates on those other properties as well.

>> i want to apologize to the commission. i was responsible for that time in 2009. due to other responsibilities and issues i was not able to prioritize that to bring that back to the commission. i appreciate this matter being brought before the commission. i will do our best to try to get these other projects move forward. this is an overall update on the status. president olague: great. do we have a date? >> the earliest would be june 2. president olague: we should schedule it for them. i would like to open up for public comment. >> sue hester. we can kind of fit this in. what i have here is a time line on this project.

i have been bugging the department to calendar this forever, for many years. i went to the original allocation hearings. they were really interesting beckon the old days of the '80s. there are consequences of sites being dormant for so long. i had a case on the other side of the street. what you have here is the original application and 84. everyone tries to be the new rules, the downtown plan. they got their allocation. in 1989, after the downtown plan was adopted, after the limits were adopted, and after an seir amendment, it expired. they went to a second round. they took out another permit. this is one of the factors to

pay attention to. there was another environmental review. it was an addendum to the scir. and here we are in 2011. one of the things the department loses track of is documents that authorize the project gets stale. you cannot sit on an eir for 20 years. one of the issues i am raising is that the department is doing no one any favors by ignoring ceqa. ceqa does not look with favor want 81998 addendum -- with favor on a 1998 addendum. if the project context has changed, and it has changed -- lincoln hill revisions went through -- rincon hill revisions went through. went through. transbay went throug