çççshe is presently the commy planning manager at aç chinaton -- at a chinatown community developmentñr center, and she hs çbeen there about four and a hf years, focusing primarily on participatory planning in land use, transportation, open space, and affordable housing. she has a master's in city planning from mit, concentration of housing, community, and economic development. she graduated with honors from uc-berkeley in architecture. prior to being in chinatown, she worked inç housing in the tenderloin. çshe has served on the board of directors of spurt and the county transportation authority çcacçç -- served on the boarf directors of spur. çwith all that, obviously

eminently qualified to join us. commissioner wu:ç thank you, ad thank you to all the commissioners for welcoming me. i am very happyç to serve, very happy to bring technical çtraining and experience, and i hope to be able to contribute to this commission. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you, and welcome. commissioners, the first items on your calendar are items proposed for continuance. at theç time of the planning of this calendar, there were none. as of today, i have received one request for continuance forç im 10, i believe. yes, itemçç 10, for 1921 vall street. the project sponsor does not agree with the request for continuance, and staff is prepared to move forward today. because of all those things, i

recommend that you not take up this requestç at this time. with that, i'm not aware of any other item on your calendar being proposed for continuance. presidentñr miguel: is there any public comment on the continuance matter? ifç not, public comment is clod -- if there is, please come to theç podium. ñr>> [inaudible] ç>> just a moment. let me turn on the microphone for you. go ahead. >> and the owner of 1921 vallejo,çç and that wouldç be anxious for the hearing to go forwardçç -- i am the owner. i did not realize untilç the

second -- until this second that a continuance had been requested, and we have already put aside time and waited six months to be heard. president miguel: thank you. weççç will consider the requt the time the item is on the agenda. is there any other public comment on the continuance calendar? if not, public comment is closed. >>ç thank you. commissioners, you are now on çyour consent calendar. item one makes that the consent calendar this week. it is considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be noxd separate discussion of the item unless a member of this commission, the çpublic, or staff so requests. in that instance, the matter would be removed from consent and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. çitem onet( is case 2011.1172cç ç626 clement street, to modify

the conditions of aç prior conditional use authorization to allow the expansion of a full- service restaurant within at approximately 1800 sq. ft. karaoke lounge on the ground floorç ofç añr two-story mixee buildingç. commissioners, following public comment, wh automatically remove this item from the consent calendar, this item is before you for consideration. president miguel: is their public comment on the item on the consent calendar? if not, public comment is closed. commissionerçç moore: move to approve. >> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval as it has been proposed. commissioner antonini: aye. ççç>> commissioner borden is absent. commissionerç borden: i am her.

>> are you prepared? commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. çcommissioner wu: aye. çpresident miguel: aye. ç>>ç thankç you, commissione. the item has been approved. ççcommissioner antonini: i wad to comment on what i thought was an excellent piece in the "çç examiner" on sunday by supervisorç weiner,ç and it ss about an issue we have discussed at greatç length, and that ist having a very large middle- income population in san çfrancisco. he goes uhrough a very good analysis, showing that that growth has shrunk significantly çfrom 1990 through 2010, and it was not even that large in 1990. çofáqthis is the core of most cities where you have families with children, and those who become most involved becauseok they care for their ççchildren, and, you know, thy build from generation to

generation. you certainlyi] see a big shift from the san francisco of the 1950's when we had a huge middle-ççclass and would not y more. ççwhether you define that as e 80thñr percentileç toç 120th,s small no matter how you cut it. that whole income group is not there. what he didç that was quite god -- he looked at this. sp]his is a chicken and egg question often. what comes first is that we do çnot have a middle-class and therefore we do not have jobs for the middleç class, or is it that theñr jobs are not here and thereç forçç do not have a m- class -- there for --ç therefo, we do not have a middle-class? group need these jobs. many businesses, when surveyed about why they moved out of san franciscoçç, have said that te populationç mostly lived in otr

places. typically, people who would service these so-called back- office operations -- operations that typically offer and are considered white-collar and whatever definition you óaot to use -- have toç have housing tt is appropriate for their needs. the price is always something that people look at, but what is also important is accessedñr to neighborhood schools -- access to neighborhood schools, and that is something that has been discussed a lot. also the size of the home. people with families are often looking for individual homesç with enough veterans and the parking for the cars that they inevitably will haveñr -- with enough bedroomsñr and parking fr the cars that they inevitably will have. i think the supervisor is right on target when he says that if we build this kind of housing or acquire existing housing that suits their needs, then we will

çattract this group back to san francisco. it was a very good editorial. with that in mind, i took a write-down to brisbane -- a ride down to brisbane yesterday and saw somebody who is doing it right. they builtñrç individualçççd homes, with clearly single- family homes with side by side parking. very pleasant, and where possible, i think that is something we have to look at in san francisco. where we will find the land is the question, but i think there might be sites where this is çpossible, andñr we have to encourageçç production of this kind ot housing wherever possible, so i appreciated that editorial or op-ed pieceç that the supervisor had done. he is involved with a group that is studying this. there was a hearing on monday which $xregrettably was not able to attend, but i think it isça

subject we need toç focus on because the core of any city is its middle income families, and we have to find a way to be able to address that shortage. thank you. commissionerç borden:ç i wanto be=)ç the first among the ch'' to welcomeç our new commission. we are excited to serve with you and have a full commission again. çi know there will be a lot of fun times ahead. i know people think it is crazy to say it is fun, but we would not serve on thisçç commission that we did not believe it. i was fortunate along with commissioner wu last night to çattend the green connection çkickoff, funded through a grat partnership among various city agencies and partners to connect people to greenç spacesçit sht

this northeastern part of the cityç. it is an initiative to look at the existing green spaces, how we look at it, and how we connect people and how we connectçç people. çñrçthereçç were maps and pe people could make suggestions. i'm really excited about the initiative because there will be a lot of unconditional workshops with walking tours and biking tours to kind of explore these areas. i think itç is very exciting tt we have an opportunity to look at something. ççñrleading ahead in a way wen do not have funding to do these çthings. i want to say congratulations to the partners of that.

commissioner sugaya: i cannot remember where i got this, but i did send a copy to staff, butçt is a workshop being held in emeryville on cell towers from march 8 -- on march 8 from 7:00 to 9:00 in the evening. çthe topics seemed to be the kd ofç things that we seem to be facing every time we had cell çantennas on our agenda. i know nothing about the center for municipal solutionsç. i'm not sure if it is with anybody going like staff or not, but anyway, i will pass this along. they have some fairly enticing questions on yourççç -- on h. comm for those who were not able to make it

tuesday, city hall looked spectacular. ñrwhoever organized it should gt big kudos. it looked fantastic. in today's "new yorkç times," there is an article which i strongly recommend for everybody to read. we have beenç asking ourselves about the impactç of foreclosus in said francisco, which is an issue difficult to put your finger on. the article squaks about extensive foreclosures, defining san francisco, officials suggest how pervasive irregularities may be across the nation, that it actually speaks about the study that was done the discovered large amounts of ñrirregularities in this city ad county. i suggest everybody read it. it says a lot, and there is actually quite a bit to be concerned about. president miguel: some of that article was in today's "examiner"ç as wellç.

other than that, i have been having a few meetingsç with people regarding the masonic auditorium issue, and there may even be hope of a solution. we will see. çcommissioner antonini: i also had some meetings. i would like to, of course, welcome commissionerç wu aboar. but crest mott court neighborhood association -- that may not be the correct term, but i did meet there with -- there is a project coming up in that area,ç and in that with about 0 neighbors there on monday night. it was very interesting. we will be hearing about that as we look forward. also, i talked about the mayor's office and the projectç sponsos in regards to california pacific and became a price of where we are on that. i'm trying to be proactive on that one as well as anything else when looking at our future

calendar. -- becameç uprisedç -- became apprised of where we are on that. >> commissioners, thank you. we can move on to directors reportç, directors announcemen. ç>> thank you, linda. i would also like to on behalf of the department welcome commissionerççç wuç. weç look forward to workingç h you very much. i did want to report quickly on theçç meeting last night that commissioner borden mentioned. itç was a veryç interesting e. because of the location on market street, i think, and the timing of the eveable to come immediately after work, and a lot of people who came were people i did not recognize from previous events, so it was a nice variety of people. in a nutshell, the green connections study is funded by the strategic growth counsel at

the state, which is a consortium çof state departments. çit is a two-year grant. the first is meant to look at a city wide network of green pen spacesççç and the city's water.and not only for people to use, but for wildlife. the second phase of the grant will be to take six corridors in six underserved neighborhoods, which are generally in the southeast quadrant of the city, and design those to a higher level of detail so that we can then seek funding to actually make imprthey are not exclusivet primarily city streets. the idea is to pick the most logical ones and the most billable ones, if you will, to turn into these kinds of green corridors. it is an interesting process, and we are fortunate to get this grant, and it is something that grew out of the open space element workedç and was identified as a next phase of work for city-wide open space.

i did want to mention briefly that regarding the sell tower issue, we have been in discussions with the department of public health and the department of technology. they are not being cooperative in helping us think through their sides of this issue, namely the public health issues and the capacity and coverage ççissues and we are continuino work with them on beefing up that side of the process, if you will. so that they can do the same kind of analysisç. we will hopefully be coming back to in the next couple of months and the proposed change to the process.

finally, with regard to the successor agencies and the development commission, there is not a lot to report except at the first meeting of the oversight board, it is scheduled for the first tuesdayç in marc, which is i think -- whatever that tuesday is. i apologize. i guess the sixth. one of the orders of business that i'm hoping we will address is the name of this entity. we are currently called the oversight board of the successor agency of the former redevelopmentxd committee, which is a real mouthful. there is not a good acronym. i'm hoping we will come up with some more pitchy name for the organization at that point as well. that is it for me, unless there are any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to give you your weekly

report about the board of supervisors and land use activities. at the land use committee, i wanted to run down a little about that hearing on middle- income housing. it was at the request of supervisors weiner and chu. although she is not a member of the land use committee, supervisor olague also attended. the meeting began with the directors of the mayor's office of housing. they underscore the importance of the issue and launched what was a veryç fact-filled hearin. staff explained that the agencies are working together and convened a task force to study the issue. they wanted to research the issue and identifyç housing nes compared to market projections for new development. the group is also looking for a gap between housing needs and production so the city can better direct funding.

the controller's office concluded that neither issue alone could solve the issue, but more funding would be needed. the public discussed potential trade-off between fundingñr for the low-income housing and funding for this new middle- income housing, and this hearing was informational, but no action was taken. however, the hearing is expected to inform two ongoing separate projects. first is the update to the inclusion very housing requirement. this work is expected later this year. the second project is the housing trust fund working group established by mayor lee. the work -- the group is looking for public funds for affordable housing. also, the land use committee -- also at the land use committee

was the chinatown special zoning, and the ordinances would allow the demolition of existing mixed use buildings without prior review or approval of the çreplacement building. this commission approved the ordinances on january 26 of this year. this week, theç legislative sponsor amended it to ensure that the mou for relocating tenants of this property conforms with the central subway's relocation study. the study was adopted by the board in 2010. the item has been recommended by approval, and the full board on tuesday of this week did vote to approve it on first reading. also at the board was final approval for all the ordinances related to the community plan, the culmination of 10 years' worth of planning. çlastly, i wanted to share thre items that were introduced as new items this week. one is a motion authorizing the budget analyst to perform three audits, one of which does relate

to planning. the item of interest is an audit of the city departments management and oversight of the former agency's assets and functions, and that was introduced by supervisorç farrell. supervisor and board president chu interest the extensions for the ne legislation, which you heard a couple of weeks ago. this will allow you to hear it within the precise time limit when you our next here on march 1. lastly, there will be a hearing on the legislative analyst audit of san francisco's affordable housing programs, andç it wille presentations by the mayor's our department and a problem of affordable housing. that concludes the report this weekñr unless there are questio. commissioner sugaya: could you go back over the audit? what is it intended to do for the planning department? >> i only describe the planning

department. this is an audit of three different functions. !ó"t u$t agencies assets and functions.$t commissioner sugaya: isn't it a little early to do that since there is an oversight committee that has not even met? >> i think it is meant to analyze what we do now that is related to what the agency was doing to see where potential overlap exists. >> thank you. >> a little changed in order call. our preservation coordinator will now becoming to the planning commission every other week to make the report tomorrow, since he has obviously a good handle on this project. also, he will also be conversely making a report to the hpc on

the activities of this commission. in an attempt to just improve communication between the two commissions. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. a couple of items from yesterday's historic preservation commission i would like to share. the architectural review committee, which is a subcommittee, that yesterday. yesterday, to review the proposal for the new mission theater, which isç -- overall, the project was well-received, and they believe the project sponsorçó is applying best reservation practices. most of the discussion was related to specific areas on the landmark interior that the project architect should study or clarified by the time the project is before the full committee for its full

certificate of appropriateness. the planning commission will review the full project, which also includes a mixedç use development adjacent to the historic theater. the planning commission will review the environmental çdocument requests for conditional use authorization as well as exceptionsç under sectn 304 of the code in the fall of this year. ñrthe second item was the hpc consider theç initiation of landmark designation to the gold dust lounge. the commission took up the matter based on a case report submitted at public comment during its february 1 hearing. yesterday, there was a great deal of public, in support of initiation of landmark designation. supervisor kim's office spoke in support of allowing -- of legislation that would allow it to stay in business. when mark designation cannot protect a use of a property and landmark designationç only

relates to the review of the physical features associated with that historic resourced. the hpc voted to continue the item until its march 21 hearing. the item was continued to allow the property owner and the authorç of the designation rept time to addressçççó hpc at its hearing yesterday requested informational hearings on the city's pdr program in anticipation of the transit district area plan coming before the body, and also on the sock story retrofit program. that concludes my report unless there are any questions. commissioner sugaya: yes, just to clarify, i think the proposed use for the new mission theater is as a multiplex theater. is that right? >> that is correct. commissioner sugaya: so it will remain basically in its sinews?

>> the proposed projectç is foa single screen theater with a full-service restaurant. the variants within the environmental document raises the screens to a five-screen theater, but it is only a very it currently under study. it is not the proposed project. commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. ç>> thank you. commissioners, with that, we can move forward on your calendar to general public comment. members of the public may address you on items that fall within the subject matter çjurisdiction of this commissin with the exceptionç of agenda items that may not be addressed at this time but only at the time they are reached on kali appeared with respect to this category, members of the public may address you for up to 3 çminutes, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. i have one speaker card.

ççpresident miguel: catherine howard. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have today a letter that was submittedçç to the draft environmental impact report for the soccer complex in golden gate park. project will removeç over 7 acs of naturalç living grass and replace it with over 7 acres of artificial turf. gravel, plastic grass, and thai çairwaysç -- tireways. let's will shine 150,000 watts of light from sunset to 10:00 p.m. 365 days a year. this is a commonç letter from kathleen macall allen and her 16-year-old daughter. i have a photograph for the

overhead, please. she writes, "my daughter and i oppose the proposal for artificial turf and stadium lights. this happened to our field in palo alto, and the results met all the players on my daughter's teams and many of her friends on the other teams miserable. they actually preferred playing on natural fields even in the rain because soccer players are a hearty lunch, and they love playing in the mud. çsee the attached picture. i have others of the entire team muddied up and smiling. my daughter and her friends were miserable playing soccer in palo alto when they lit -- change the field to artificial turf. besides constance give reasons and for putting, there were many more accidents, and the girls just hurt more after playing on them -- besides constant skin abrasions. my daughter had a miniature concussion." there is more in the letter. sf ocean supports active

recreation. we support renovating the existing fieldñr with natural grass and no lights and better construction, using the remainder of the $12 million fundingç for other playing fie, providing recreation opportunities for use all over san francisco, while preserving golden gate park both woodland and matters as wildlife habitat and as a park with heritage for future generations. p&e%ei president miguel: thank you. is there additional general public comment on not agendized items? >> we are the smaller spokes' group for a neighborhood committee that is opposing a product on belgrade ave. it is on the schedule for march 23. it is a combined schedule where it has very itsç. we w