comment on public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. before the next item, i just want to say because i did not before, thank you to sfgtv for their ongoing excellent coverage of these proceedings. next item please. >> item 10, adjournment. supervisor mirkarimi: have a great day. thank you.

president olague: good afternoon. this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for march 24th, 2011. let me ask everyone to turn off their cell phones, pagers or any electronic devices that may sound off during the procedures. [roll-call] we do have a quorum. commissioners, the first category on this calendar -- if i may just take one moment to announce that for the next few weeks, your calendars will look a little strange. they will not follow your regular order of business. to allow us to test out this new early start -- when you talk

about your rules and regulations, you changed your start time from 1:30 to 12 noon. unfortunately, all of your cases have been advertised for 1:30. we need to take care of all of the business that does not require notice prior to 1:30 so we can be legal in your the cases. with that, commissioners, the first category on this calendar is the general public comment that has a time limit of 15 minutes. members of the public may address subject matters with the jurisdiction of this commission with the exception of subject items which may not be addressed during this category. each member of the public may address this commission for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. i do not have any speaker cards.

>> i'm with the council community housing organization. i know last week, the commission heard a presentation on a discussion concerning treasure island and possible replacement of the development tax increment financing commission abroad [no] indicated there were strong similarities between infrastructure development instruments and redevelopment tax increase in financing. that is absolutely and completely untrue. they, by statute, infrastructure development mechanisms are prohibited from funding public benefits or affordable housing

development. the only possibility of using the infrastructure development instrument for housing is if in the course of devinfrastructures demolished. some of the funds can therefore be used to replace that demolish housing. in the case of treasure island, there is of course no housing being proposed to be demolished, yet a significant portion, in excess of 30% of planned housing development for treasure island is affordable housing. most of it, rather deeply affordable. to contemplate as the presenter did the equivalency of this bonding mechanism for and the structure development with redevelopment tax increment financing, which in san francisco requires that the% of

the tax increment financing in evan -- in any given district go to affordable housing is laughable. they are in no way equivalent. it is astounding to me that an agency of local government would even implied that it is. that is why i am speaking today. the challenge of treasure island is that, given the state of the budget language concerning that basically dissolution of urban renewal, there is no possibility under pending state lot of initiating treasure island as a redevelopment area so it could be an approved project. so we are faced with the stark reality of having to come up with mechanisms to fund the affordable portion of affordable housing on treasure island or we

are giving up totally on trial in having any additional affordable housing. i would strongly urge this commission and by the redevelopment agency, the former counsel of the redevelopment agency, the former director of the redevelopment agency and former planning commissioner to give you were detailed discussion. president olague: thank you. >> thank you. for once, i'm not here to address you on housing issues. i am here as a neighbor near a proposed chase bank branch that is relocating -- that is locating a big branch without complying with the formula

retail law. i am very disturbed by what appears to be on this project, a concerted effort to rewrite the planning code and prevent this branch from having a conditional use hearing before you. it's a major issue that applies not only to this proposed bank but many other categories of what are clearly formula retail under the planning code and are not being treated as such by the department. the chase bank in particular, as to of the commissioners and the board of appeals agreed with us last night at a hearing, chase bank is a type of sales and service retail, a broad category specifically included in the formula retail law of the planning code. the interpretation being applied by the planning department would exempt banks, car rental

companies, automotive repair companies, a whole host of what are clearly chain store businesses, what are clearly required by the formula retail legislation to go through this body for a conditional use hearings. right now, the neighbors are having no input whatsoever on this project. there is also a major issue at this particular site, given the plans reveal the site is over 4000 square feet, requiring conditional use, yet the permit holder has claimed it is 3946 square feet and even their own plans submitted to the planning department, one set of them -- there are two conflicting plans -- one set of them reveals a bigger over 4000 square feet and planning is not applying the planning code requirements for the measurement of the space. they are excluding exit corridors and other common areas that are clearly part of gross floor area and clearly

under the planning code trigger conditional use. this is a very disturbing situation with respect to this branch and neighbor this feels strongly about that and want nothing more than the opportunity to have our day here at the planning commission agenda item to talk about the use. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to be heard. i live five blocks from the site for chase bank and i have lived in the neighborhood for seven years. i oppose permitting the chase bank to move into this location without a conditional use hearing. i want to draw attention to what is the improper reading of the law. there is no exception for bank

in the law. for miller retail is defined as the types of retail sales activities or establishment and in section c, it goes on to give a list of types of businesses. each of those is defined in article 7. every item on that list has its own definition in article 7. sales and service retail is included as having its own definition within article 7. it states a commercial use which provides goods and or services directly to the consumer. that is what a bank is. a bank provides services directly to the consumer, and directly to me as i am a chase customer. it also gives an express exception -- it says it does not include sales and assert -- it does not include a non-retail use inaccessible to the general public as defined.

those are three sections as defined. you can look at them, it is light manufacturing, sales, non- retail. service financial is not one of the three sections expressly stated in the exception provided for in sales and service retail. if we allow this exception to move forward, which is not provided for in the law, we are setting a precedent and a domino effect that allows banks like chase popping up nonstop in cities without opportunity for neighbors to be heard and a conditional use hearing is necessary. the denial of which denies me and my neighbors are due process rights. thank you. >> i live in the same

neighborhood and i have the same feelings. i have been there about 15 years and i agree that the case should be having a conditional review before this body and they are trying to avoid the public outrage required, the notice required -- public outreach required. there are at least three other people who want to speak but i believe they have similar positions. i agree the formula retail law should be plainly read -- this is a large bank, a chain and it should be applied. the formula retail includes retail sales and service and there is no exception for banks. i agree with their analysis. additionally, this space appears to be over 4000 square feet. i went and measured the space as best i could from the outside. i used to be an engineer, so i know how to make accurate calculations and vestments.

i also looked at the plans they submitted to the board of appeals. i remade the measurements and my measurements were accurate and showed it went over 4000 square feet and i believe the neighborhood met with the zoning administrator and even as sony and administrators calculation appeared to go over 4,000 feet. then there was a back and forth trying to change the numbers. it is clear that goes over 4000 square feet and that should require a conditional use permit. not only that, as they walked up atm college planning concedes requires a conditional use permit that now are trying to change the plans so they don't have to have a conditional use permit. the board of appeals did not buy that and for all of these different reasons, this should be heard by this commission. we also have a facebook page for

people to look at. i want to call your attention to another matter. the board of appeals last week, some permits were heard by the on appeal, one by me and one by jeff cooper. in one case, the permit was revoked. in both cases, [unintelligible] so to avoid the opportunity for residents to appeal those permits, there is about 190 permits we estimate. second, in the rush to the equipment up, they did not comply with a number of conditions on the permit, including that there is supposed to be a safe, flush mounted, and they had not even painted some of it the correct color. the board of appeals was pretty upset and felt that the next one

should be fined and i think that would be a good way to do -- to deal with our budget problems here. [tone] >> i live about two doors down from the proposed chase bank on the other side of oak. i am a member of the community and feel we needed the opportunity to weigh in on this major change in our neighborhood. whether or not the formula retail law applies, it exists so the community can weigh in on the impact of the character of the neighborhood and to independently owned businesses have already been kicked out in order for chase to move in. a shop that has been there for almost 30 years and that means effectively if chase can move in, this entire block will be a gas station, a gas station, a

gas station with a car wash, and a chase bank. the city has already invested in the character of this neighborhood. at about a year ago, we have a boulevard built-in trying to beautify it from waller to california street. obviously, the city is invested in the character of this neighborhood and that is you should not be able to fly under the radar. another major issue being overlooked as traffic. oak is a major artery through this city for bikers and cars. we have already seen at the of arco station, the massive nightmare that has been a bike lane over there. there were months of protests and an organization formed in order for this problem to be addressed. i do not want to have to wait until there is an organization to address whether or not traffic is going to be impacted by this.

the san francisco bicycle coalition is connecting with the city master plan and has proposed a city -- has proposed a bike lane to run on oak in front of that chase bank where we could have lines of cars waiting to get in. this is a major hazard to the city, potentially, and we're not even asking for chase to be blocked from moving in, we're just asking for the community to have an opportunity to weigh in on this issue. thank you very much for taking the time to let our verses -- let our voices be heard. president olague: any additional general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i have a number of things, if i may.

last sunday, at&t has agreed it announced by t-mobile for $39 billion in cash and stocks. since we have a number -- since we have struggled with repeated applications for a number of months, i would say more than eight or nine months, i would like this commission to have a separate discussion about the extensive list of the joint networks which we have basically supported but now i think this poses other challenges to us. i'd like to understand the challenge as comprehensively with some nod from the board because they will be asking themselves the same question in whatever different form they will ask themselves the question. i would like to suggest we all step back and consider what that means to us. no decisions have been made yet, but this is a very important

ethical issue we have to go through. the second point -- i talked to you last week about the numbers of the u.s. census. i was able to get additional information on that and that information made me even more concerned. if i quoted to you last week there were 31,131 units recorded housing in san francisco, that stands in stark contrast to a we had in the year 2000 where 16,827 units were reported vacant. an increase in vacancies from 4.8% in 2002 8.3% in 2010. -- 4.8% in 2000, 8.3% in 2010. we are creating a theoretical

additional vacancies. i'm not saying it do not approve, but i would like to see something not how i look at the vacancy and what opportunities there are and what challenges are posed to us in decision making. with respect to what i heard from public comment a few minutes ago, i sit on the treasure island citizen advisory. this group, together, tried to find information, what input structure financing district means. there is not a route -- there might be some experts who know something about it, but it's an uncharted tool from what i understand in the state of california. i think florida has practiced it and i am really not repeating any knowledge, repeating what i have been able to gather. i want to be respectfully ask for your indulgence. i'm not an expert by a long

shot. but the question that was raised for me is why will -- why we will all be struggling to look for new tools in lieu of redevelop because we all need them and city governments, we all need to understand what it really means so that we can support this in what ever way new support needs to be brought forward, particularly in light of we have a policy which is clearly stated. if that policy is challenged by new tools, we need to figure out how we formulate new policy to supplement or redefine what the new tool needs to do if we use it. then again, there will be many projects that will be asking for the same thing. the biggest one that comes to mind is hunters point. we have all made commitments to a number of projects along the way, which will probably have to

use that tool the way trends are going. i'm asking this commission, perhaps using the suggestion to ask mr. marsalis to join us -- mr. to join us. president olague: on april 7th, we are having the discussion about treasure island. he has been everywhere in the city government. if someone like he could come and give us the expertise to the discussion, i just don't know what his availability is. in addition to mr. blackwell, if he has the time available, and others, so that we have a robust

discussion about what this means. the physical project and these other issues are around public benefits. [crosstalk] >> i think that's fine, but it's like they are all in house people. it would seem that there might be some other expertise around who can look at it from a different perspective. i don't know who those people are. with a little searching around, i think there are outside consultants, somebody that has some perspective other than the redevelopment agency staff. >> since we are having a discussion on this and linda is

starting to get nervous, i am talking to rich about getting someone from outside city government to talk to us on april 7th when you have informational hearing on treasure island. i don't know who that is, but the first one done in the city was here. that was the first one. there are people out there -- commissioner antonini: maybe someone from the governor's office would have a perspective on it. a couple of items -- many of you may have been watching the n.c.a.a. division one men's championship basketball last week and and will be throughout the tournament of course. i have the brackets here -- i was doing my brackets -- this is

part of my comment and there's a reason for it. the size of this tournament, not just the final four, but all the games beginning with last week and are located in 12 different cities. these cities include dayton, ohio, newark, new jersey, tulsa, tucson, tampa, cleveland, washington d.c., denver and chicago, all of which have lower populations than san francisco. two of them have higher populations -- chicago and houston, where the final four will play. the reason we will not host anything here is we have no or rain and we haven't had an arena. this is huge -- we have no irina and we haven't had an arena. this precludes us from any major concert because capacity is too small from national political conventions to the nba and a lot of sources of revenue. this is one of the things i comment on frequently and there are plans afoot to try to do something which, and the times

we are challenged for revenue and trying to figure out ways of getting more revenue into san francisco, this is a source of huge amounts of revenue for events that can occur virtually 365 days or nights a year. it's something we should pursue privately and publicly to see what can be done. an interesting article in today's "chronicle." i know lot of you probably saw this -- it talked about projections on gross national per-capita, they say san francisco is projected by 2025 to have the fourth highest in the u.s., which is encouraging. but they did mention some admonitions. interestingly enough, competition with male -- surprisingly enough, the cities that finished with us -- that

finished ahead of us were not necessarily smaller in populations but not as dense as we are -- they had san jose, charlotte and bridgeport, conn. i think what they commented on specifically was transportation, the quality of housing, the quality of schools and parks and those are our challenges. i thought it was an insightful article, it's just one opinion, but it points you to some things we deal with all the time and we lose many of our most productive citizens because we don't address their needs in housing. a lot of things to do. commissioner borden: i agree with the ideas about the redevelopment funding hearing. i did want to pick up on a same

public comment had related to the formula retail issue and a financial services issue. i know we have always considered financial institutions to be separate from retail legislation, but might be worthwhile having a discussion at commission about the formula of retail legislation in general. i think it has been nearly 10 years. just the impact, what has happened and if there are any necessary updates related to based on new realities. it would be useful to have a clarifying discussion and in some cases, if people want, going to the board to make changes, but i think it's worthwhile how it impacted positively or negatively, neighborhoods and what has been the outgrowth of the consequence. i know one of the other trends we have seen as more stores that are -- they don't have locations in the united states but more stores in europe and other

places 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.