public comment? >> hi, i am mark brown and i work at access cafe. i will be losing my job. it is such a really nice building. this thing brings character to the street and with cars becoming less usable in the city and mass transit a little more difficult, having housing and commercial in the same space is a tremendous thing and i have looked at pictures and seen the pictures you have. he is such a great guy, we are behind it 100%. he is a good guy and it is a good-looking project. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. any further public comment? if not, public comment is

closed. commissioner miguel: i appreciate even though it was a little late in the game the meeting with the dog patch and the boosters association. i talked with both of them regarding the project. they are in support of it. they do as has been inferred by the presentation -- hope you would work closely as far as the pavement to park. it is hard to make commitments on a public space woman has not been rounded out as far as final design -- when it has not been rounded out as far as final design. i trust you will do right by it. this is an extension of what is happening on 16th street with kaiser set to go as well as extensive housing in back of it. i am pleased to have heard from

max from access cafe. also -- although much more recent in the neighborhood is they have become in their short time a bit of an institution in the neighborhood as well. i hope they come back and serve the neighborhood. as far as the architecture, i am for the project. it is something that needs to be done on those lots and i know it has been said so before. when you started on this or even before. my only question on the architecture, the buildings are a bit of a mirror image to an extent. they did present -- they have been presented to us. i would be much more pleased if there was a greater differentiation between them, the pdr section to me could take

a bit more of an industrial look to it. and i do not know, i would not want to do anything here now but perhaps to work with the department of little more on that. i would hate to see between them get -- daggett and the rest of that area going up, when you percent -- proceed basically from mission to mission bay along 16th, that you just look at the same, same come all the way down or barely a differentiation of architecture. i just hope you can work with the department and take that into consideration. commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner moore: i think it

is a very interesting project in the context of daggett place. there are few questions i would add. on the comments about the tightening of the skin, i would agree with that. and with what commissioner miguel said about the pdr portion of the building. i am happy to see it. it is not really done very often. it sets a new trend and we understand the transformation of the eastern neighborhoods. that is what we kind of touched on but we did not understand what use or buildings would best addressed that. i was talking about buildings. the director smiled, he remembers the moment in our battles about what to do about eastern neighborhood and i am

glad to hear about access cafe. those kinds of things are important to us. they resonate with what our concerns are. i appreciate the sensitivity toward butcher boosters. they wrote of an extensive list of long demands they had somewhere. i hear some of them addressed. i think that is something which happens between -- behind the scenes and i think it is part of a healthy, ongoing dialogue. i would have one observation and i apologize, you might not be able to do anything about it. you have an unfortunately tall sign in your neighborhood. if you could find a way to perhaps move that over a little bit, filling in the last design would become awkward. i just have to say that.

would you explain at the mic, please? >> i do not know this for faq but considering how much rental income assigned generation -- the sign generates, i do not think anyone will move the sign. commissioner moore: i would be happy to leave it there. i hope there are some transformation always in the future. >> that be golf -- belongs to the owner of wolf's and he retired a few years ago so he could go play golf. commissioner moore: we will keep it for future discussion. commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: it is exciting to see this project move forward. it is innovative.

to see this together, it is well noted in the case reports are not necessarily in public that this is a contaminated site that will be cleaned up or abbreviated which is an exciting outcome for san francisco. i am glad the project sponsor clarified it was a green building. that is something that has come up among perturb boosters. i think it is a great project. i am happy to support it. commissioner antonini: i also feel this is a very good project and what we were looking for when eastern neighborhoods was approved and is great seeing it come to fruition. as far as design, i like it generally. i think it is well done. i do know that it appears the finishes are complete -- more complete on the pdr section. i am glad -- fine with having both sections look the same.

we should remember that just because it is an industrial use does not mean it cannot have style. the auto repair garages of the 1920's and 1930's had a nice finishes and a brother of webre and cornices -- whether the laverock cornices. just because it is industrial does not mean it has to be stark. other than that, i think is great. >> i wanted to thank everyone for their patience with this project. by san francisco standards, this has been a long time coming because of the complexities of getting caught up in the eastern neighborhoods plan and issues about the site, issues about resources. there has been a lot of discussion and time spent on in the great scheme of things a relatively modest project. commissioner antonini: move to approve.

>> second. commissioner sugaya: yes. move to approve with conditions. where does that leave the pavement to parks issue? is a part of the condition or is it not part of the condition -- is it part of the condition or is it not part of the condition? quex as the up -- >> as the updated motion was read, there are -- streetscape improvements. the sponsor has requested that be a voluntary option to them, to provide to offer at their discretion and alternatives streetscape improvements. the issue is that we're on the same page about wanting the plaza to been made permanent and done in a very good way that benefits the city and the project.

they are concerned and i can speak to a further about there are complications with the site and the timing and they do not want to get caught in a situation without flexibility. their proposal was to have the language say that at a minimum, the better street plan requirements have to be provided. if it is possible and they are willing, they can provide alternative improvements, improvements to the streetscape, to the plaza in exchange. that is the decision of the planning commission has to make. -- the decision the planning commission has to make. commissioner moore: without understanding the technical details, it is difficult to say. they intend to pursue the project -- if it is doable. if there are technical issues regarding the implementation of this streetscape plan, i think

we would be shooting ourselves in the foot recurring at a time when it cannot be done for other reasons. streetscape complete our -- streetscape improvements are larger infrastructure idea. i technically would not know how to ask mr. -- perhaps to ask mr. teague to give an explanation. >> could you clarify what your asking for? -- you are asking for? >there is two time lines to consider. one is the approval time line and the other is the construction time line. whatever streetscape improvements that are going to be approved would need to be done as part of the bidding permit approval. there is potentially to separate

time lines. with the department actively working on funding and design for the park to become -- the plaza to become permanent regardless of this development, there are synergies and you can work out where everyone can do more with less and we're happy to do that. from a construction standpoint and they can speak to this, the sponsor more specifically, obviously, that would be done at the very end of construction, the construction phase. i do not think we have a big problem with the department with the voluntary option. this is something that was developed fairly late in the game with consultation with the city attorney on what options were available to us. >> could you speak to that as that design architect? >> yes, commissioner. in order to deliver supplies to the site, we're going to have to access it from eighth street,

we will have to do some removal of a portion of the existing plaza. we will have on the sidewalks and we will work with the city's sidewalks streetscape plan. i think i cannot speak about the money issue or how much or what we do not know exactly what will happen to the park, but i can say that it is wonderful to have a nice plaza at the front door to our building. i think my client is in favor of doing whatever he can to insure that is done properly it and it works well. it is a benefit to our building, he understands that. commissioner moore: the only person we can ask is the lawyer for the project. that is why they do not -- >> it is uncertainty about timing and cost. that is why there is a concern about making it an absolute requirement and i understand that. my suggestion might be the

condition read something like they were working with the city to work out these issues and to come to a conclusion [inaudible] >> we are absolutely willing to work with the city in good faith to make the improvements. we just feel like there is too many moving parts and we do not know enough to agree to something definitive. commissioner moore: thank you. that is exactly what i needier. -- need to hear. commissioner sugaya: if we added a requirement is the requirement to have them fund the whole thing or a portion of it, or what? >> if you look at the project and take a project out of it completely, it is subject to 1 38.1 which says per the planning department's review we can require them to do any of the standard street scape improvements, sidewalk widening and more substantial

landscaping. because this is a unique site in front of a public plaza, it may be better for everyone that instead of spending x dollars on -- it could be spent for constructing the plaza. that is what comes down to. there is a baseline requirements that will have to be met no matter what. the code does not provide flexibility administratively to say instead of doing these, it help fund and construct the plaza. commissioner sugaya: if we make it as part of the plaza at a more voluntary thing, they can proceed with the city -- the city will be happy. >> the mayor carmen is the

project has the opportunity to do an alternative to the standard improvements -- we do not have the ability to do that administratively. the second is whether we can require them to do the alternative were they would volunteer to do the alternative under our approval -- approval. commissioner sugaya: given the brothers presence in the city and all that, whatever that we can trust them to do the right thing. i would be in favor of making it voluntary. commissioner wu: secretary, if you could call the question. >> the motion on the floor is for approval with the amendments the staff has read into the record at the beginning of this hearing. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, commission, aye, commisr

moore, aye, commissioner wu, moore, aye, commissioner wu, aye. >> i will remind all of us to turn of cell phones or electronic devices. you are on item 11, amendments to the san francisco planning code to include financial services in the definition of formula retail. >> good afternoon. i will defer to supervisor mar. supervisor mar: thank you for listening to me today. i appreciate the thoughtfulness. it has been a very engaging

process so it is valuable for me to come here. my name is eric mar, i represent the richmond district and i am proud to be working with a coalition of small business and neighborhood advocates to present this ordinance before you. i wanted to say that our ordinance is a product of coal -- a coalition. some of us worked on the campaign in 2006 and it was my assumption that banks and financial institutions should be part of formula retail and in many ways, this is bringing that about now, six years after the fact in some ways. thank you for this opportunity. this ordinance amends section 7.3 -- 70 3.3, including financial service within the categories of uses which are subject to the formula retail controls and require a conditional use permit. i feel that it is a straightforward but important ordinance. it brings financial services under the same requirements that

voters in 2006 passed, proposition g. as you are aware, banks and formula retail or banks and other financial institutions do not fall within the definition of a formula retail, according to the planning staff. this brings financial services within the definition, making banks, credit unions, and savings and loans that have 11 or more branches subject to the conditional use requirement. it is not a ban and allows financial institutions to move into areas where the community supportive. th-- is supportive. financial services would be captured by the ban. it is prone neighborhood and pro-business. intends to give neighborhoods a greater say in the weight that

commercial corridors are developed and adds protection to small businesses and we have a number of small business folks in the audience. it allows good planning which i know you appreciate. and allows the planning commission and staff to assess whether a proposed bank, savings and loan, or credit union is necessarily desirable -- necessary or desirable in the committee and whether there is an over-concentration of banks. this was supported by the small business community -- commission. also very happy my co-sponsor of the ordinance is christina olague, one of your former colleagues and supervisor of district 5. i wanted to add i appreciate the planning staff analysis, there will be recommending service retail be eliminated from the use of -- list of uses included in the definition because it

creates too much ambiguity and confusion. i would like to argue that i am interested like you are in the staff -- and the staff are in including former lead definitions. and what to do that in a well considered and -- i want to do that in a well considered manner. there may be concerns raised about unintended consequences of that broad approach and i ask the commission not adopt that modification and allow for more community input and a rigorous analysis of how we can fix the parts of the code which i support. i wanted to say that my colleague and supervisor scott wiener from district 8 is asking for consideration of a different approach, allowing conditional use requirement on all financial services, rather than having them labeled as formula retail. i do not think that is wise. part of the reason is it will be unfair and an undue burden on smaller financial institutions,

savings and loan or the credit unions or other smaller ones. and i want to support more diversity among small businesses and smaller credit unions. i feel that my colleague's approach is too broad and would impact smaller institutions. i want to thank you for your consideration. mike co-sponsor is supervisor -- my co-sponsor is supervisor olague. we want to support this ordinance. i appreciate your attention and would hope you would support this measure. thank you so much. commissioner wu: thank you, supervisor mar. >> this legislation would add financial services to the definition of a formula retail in articles 7 and 8.

retailing includes uses such as restaurants, bars, liquor stores, general retailers, and game arcades. financial-services includes banking services and products to the product -- public. when occupying more than 15 linear feet of frontage or 200 square feet of gross floor area. the department is recommending approval of the proposed legislation because formula retail controls were primarily adopted to maintain the unique visual character of these neighborhoods, commercial districts. financial-services typically have standardized -- a standardized look and signage that could override the neighborhood if there is an overconcentration. they also blaclack visually interesting store fronts. it can negatively impact the

street life and vitality. staff is proposing one modification as supervisor mar mentioned, that would be to remove the broad category of sales and service retail from the code language for formula retail. 6 -- sales and service is a broad category and non-specific. several uses are called out in the services retail category. the department considers those that are called that under the product category -- broader category to be considered retail. this would not change the way the department interprets this code but it will remove language that has confused -- caused confusion. i am done and available for questions. commissioner wu: thank you. we can take public comment on this item. i have a number of cards. as i call your name, you can come up to the mike.>> good aft,

commissioners. as a member of the small business commission, we voted in support of this legislation. we want to urge you to support it also. we have not had time to review the change that is proposed by the planning department about removing sales and services. we would like to have time to review that and weigh in on that and we are asking you to remove that one portion today so we can carry it out and more -- have more conversation. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. kraska afternoon. i am -- good afternoon. i am co-president of the

business association. we have spoken with the planning commission and stated our position on this matter a couple of times. last time being a year ago or last year when we were discussing the issue of chase moving into divisadero. we had the merchant association who thought the banks were already in the formula retail ban because of the retail and service component. that aside, we wanted to restate that it is crucial to preserve and protect our small business community to add financial institutions in the former -- and the formula retail band. we are opposed to having the retail component removed from the wordage and would appreciate for the discussion. i wanted to reiterate how important the small-business community is on the vibrancy of the city. i moved into the neighborhood in

1990 when hayes valley was lumped under the western addition and was at that time pretty much one of the worst neighborhoods in the whole entire city. we in the small business community have taken hayes valley from the worst to the best ever heard in the city and we have done that because the neighborhood is unique, small businesses, sold proprietorships for the most part. -- sole proprietorships for the most part. that is what the city should be about. the area shoppers come to our neighborhood because they're not confronted with starbucks and banks on every corner. it is not necessary. global travelers come to our neighborhood because they are shopping in a very unique and undeniably vibrant neighborhood, only small business and it is important maintain that.

thank you so much. commissioner wu: thank you. laurence? and tess wellborn and catherine petrin. >> i am the manager of the mattress co. and i am on the board of the hayes valley labour association. -- never association -- neighborhood association. we do urge you to approve this, we echo what russell just said. hayes valley has transformed itself over the last two years, largely through sole proprietorships and any

businesses. not only with the hayes valley be threatened visually and esthetically by the addition of financial institutions, but in addition, these institutions, when they come into neighborhoods frequently cause commercial rents to rise in the neighborhood which is also threatening to the individual and unique character of the we very much urge you to support this measure for us. thank you. commissioner wu: next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i own true sake or i have been doing business for almost a decade, quite proud of that. i'm here to speak to you