we could maybe learned more about. we talked about having a regional reports to understand what some of the other municipalities are doing. particularly the closer end, oakland and san jose, because a lot of people who work down there live up here. i would also like to understand -- i would think under fair housing law, what kinds of ordinances would be legal? it would not seem to me that multiple family unit living having a law like that would pass muster because you must have housing ranges for diverse populations of income, one would think. i do not know. it would be helpful to understand what other regions are planning some again figured out. i know we also even talked about the project in brisbane that is happening as well by the bart station there, just so we can understand how it is flowing together. commissioner moore: a good

source for tapping into on that issue is spur. the san jose office is very closely following it. their strong components for smart growth. but it is more the details and information that is available for which they're definitely a great source. the discussion or controversy alameda got themselves into dates easily 15 or more years back when, at the time of the closure of the naval air station where the council proposed to reduce the plane with higher density, which was a really good plan but it fell on its face at that time. they have been battling this issue ever since. commissioner wu: thank you. i just wanted to add two items. last night i attended an interesting forum put on by one of the new tech firms in midmarket. we have had some discussion here at the commission about what it means that these new firms are

moving into the midmarket and what it means for the populations that are there currently. the question on the table last night was, how can these firms play a role in ensuring that there is food in the neighborhood for the tenants living in sro's? i thought it was an interesting beginning of the discussion. i believe they're tapping into improve sf. i am not exactly sure what that is, but using back together ideas. there are some members of the audience today from a program that my employer is involved in or i am involved in. the chinatown community classroom. commissioner moore came to their final review, if you want to call it that, i think two years ago. last year. it was really great. sort of a grass-roots training program for the future planers of our city. and we're going to be doing a brown bag -- brownback exchange

with the planning department. i wanted to invite all the commissioners to come to the final project review on august 3 this year at 10:00 a.m. commissioner moore: would you send out an e-mail, please? can the rise so we can see who they are? commissioner wu: sure. thanks for coming today. >> ok, thank you. commissioners, we can move on to directors report, directors announcements, and review of the past week's events and the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> thank you. good afternoon. if i may stretch of the conversation for one more minute on the regional plan. we have been working with abag on the sustainable community strategy required under sb 375. the numbers mentioned were the numbers allocated to san francisco and were based on a very extensive process.

they originally were higher. then they dropped in went up. they went back and forth for several months. they have finalized those numbers and are entering the eir phase of that sustainable community synergy. so i think it would be good time to have everything and hearing in the planning commission. i will ask staff to get organized and will try to get folks from abag, and i think spur has been heavily involved in that. secondly, i just wanted to call your attention to the director's report today. there is a little note about having recognized milestone years of service for the planning staff. it turns out that we had never done this in the department. because of that, we were sort of playing catch up. 100 people out of 100 people repplier recognized for years of service, -- out of 150 or recognized. ranging from five years to 35

years in service. the second longest is your secretary linda avery who has 30 years of service with the department. it was a very nice event, and i think staff appreciated the recognition. i also realize that there are some commissioners on this commission to have multiple years of service which we should recognize. we would be happy to do that in a future meeting as well. finally, i wanted -- we have had a week of public meetings related to the better market street project. the first one was on it tuesday where we had over 200 people attend. it was a credible, -- incredible attendance. the second one, saturday, july 21, on one south of the nest. we also have published today, i guess, the was a public webinar at noon. we're getting very good responses on the market street

work. i know commissioner miguel is continuing to be on the committee that is overseeing work as well. so that it concludes my presentation unless there are questions. commissioner sugaya: yes, i would just like to also recognize kate stacy who has been in service to not only the planning commission but the landmark preservation advisory board way back in the 1980's. maybe i should not say that far back. [applause] commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner antonini: i just wanted to ask the director -- i also understand there is a sunday streets, although it is not necessarily planning issue, but the rotate through different neighborhoods. i think it is third street this sunday if i am not mistaken. >> [inaudible] commissioner antonini: that is what i have heard. not sure if it is correct. but it is good that everyone knows that is where it is going to be this sunday. >> get afternoon, commissioners.

planning department staff. weekly report of the board of supervisors and land use activities. at the ladies' committee, there were a couple of items. first, a transit center district plan -- at the land use committee. this includes all the ordinances your review in may. in addition to regular committee members, supervisors kim and olague joined in on the hearing as they are co-sponsors of the ordinances, along with the mayor. the director and maria mid opening remarks. staff then presented the highlights of the plan. the supervisors posed numerous questions to staff. they're most interested in hearing more about affordable housing, open space, shadow analysis, funding, parking and a building height, and historic preservation. there were very interested in the plan. about a dozen during the comment, and they could be characterized as supportive of.

the supervisors present expressed substantial support for the plane, the comments of this, and it points to the city. we thought the committee forwarded all elements to the board with the support. next up was the cpmc long-range develop plan. this hearing was the fourth of four planned hearings on that plan. monday's hearing posted -- focus on transportation and housing. the housing discussion focused on three primary topics. the underworld -- of the underlying code requirements of the jobs housing linkage fee. the van ness special use district housing construction requirement, that you do is a vigil in conjunction with non- residential. and the housing payments negotiated as part of the development agreement. city staff also presented the transportation component with a focus on the cathedral hill campus. president chiu and supervisor kim and campos join the

committee for portions of this five-hour hearing. there was an overview of the transportation elements of the project. our presentation was followed by a presentation by the sfmta on the provisions of the developed agreement related to transit services. last of the mayor's office presented streetscape provisions to the development agreement to the supervisors were interested in understanding why the planning department's in terms of the jobs-housing linkage fee was not applicable to the project. many members of the public felt it should be, but it is not required by the code. the board expressed interest in department's transportation analysis, questioning the accuracy of the department's methodology as it relates to traffic, transit, and emergency vehicle access. they were also interested in the mta's involvement in review of the transportation analysis. in the end, the item was continued by a vote of 2-1 to the call of the chair. following that on tuesday, the

eir for this project was before the full board. the primary concerns were related to the eir's alternatives. transportation ounces, housing, and air quality. the beginning of cpmc's presentation, general counsel articulated a request for a two- week it -- continuance of the eir. after nearly seven hours of testimony, the board continued the eir for two weeks to july 31. a majority of the board indicated that if there were to have voted on the adequacy of the eir that night, they would have voted to uphold the appeal, primarily due to three received inaccuracies. the first would be the transportation analysis methodology. the second would be the limited scope of the project objectives. the third was the failure to provide adequate analysis and the housing need for various income levels. which staff pointed out that

that is a socioeconomic issue and not a ceqa review issue. the item was continued until the end of the month. on tuesday was the charter amendment for the housing trust fund. this item was referred out of committee last week, and per your request last week, you'll find a short memo in your packet this week that this summarize the major components of the charter amendment. the legislative digest that has been written by the city attorney. you have a hearing on a charter amendment as well as the companion ordinance in the middle of august. but this week at the board hearing, the item was continued as required by the procedures. charter amendments cannot be voted on at their first appearance of the board. lastly, i wanted to share a couple introductions this week. supervisor wiener introduced an organism would permit that five- foot height increase for active use this along both castro street and the 24th street, noe

valley neighborhood commercial districts. actually, there are three. there was also a resolution sponsored by six supervisors that would affirm the board of supervisors commended to ensuring the long-term viability and operation of st. luke's hospital. the last one is the second ordinance. this one was altered -- offered by supervisors and meaner and farrell. it would reinstate liquor license controls and establish cu control for limited restaurants on union street. both of those ordinances will be before you for the next three months. in response to the question you asked last week about the spending ordinance -- depending ordinance to amend the environment third to require a new and remodeled buildings to provide water fills stations, it was unclear from the short summary of that would apply to all new construction after further consultation with the supervisor sponsor and the puc,

that would only apply to buildings which were required to already provide public drinking fountains because the residential projects would not have that requirement. and i did hear from the zoning administrator that there was no board of appeals hearing last night. so that includes the report unless there are questions. commissioner antonini: thank you, excellent report as always. i just wanted to go back on the concerns of the supervisors in regards to the environmental impact report regarding cal pacific. you mentioned three things. one was transportation. we talked about analysis on housing lead to an income of all of the best levels and acknowledged it is not part of the barn to report. what was the third one? >> concerned that the scope of the project objectives is too limited. >> i was at the hearing. the scope of -- the project sponsor's objectives.

at the beginning of the e.r., the sponsor has to lay out objectives -- at the beginning of the eir. there objectives and if they're willing to narrowly defined. the was come -- that was some of the concern the supervisors raised. commissioner borden: retried to schedule ceqa training for the commission, and i think that we might want to invite the board of supervisors. particularly as it pertains to project description and i have looked through my but, there is not a lot i have found that seems to lay out what is included in that description. it would be great to have training and talk a little bit more about that. obviously, the project sponsors are there to benefit their project.

i am not really sure what is considered an adequate or three a project directive. maybe this training will help us understand that. also, it is helpful anyway. >> perhaps we can discuss the benefits. i will definitely appreciate it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will share a few items with you regarding yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the commission will meet only one time this month because of the july 4 holiday. yesterday, they reviewed and unanimously approved an

expansion and rehabilitation of the contributing building to the market in the conservation district. the planning commission will review the entitlement associated with this project. the commission also completed its review of the entitlements for the veterans, the memorial complex across the street. there were two components to the review. the exteriors of the building is landmarked. the interior is not included, but the designating the ordinance requires to provide review and comment to the board of trustees of any major alterations that occurred to the interior spaces. after about an hour of public testimony, the commission approved the appropriateness to the building. it began deliberations on the

interior work. there were members of the public including many veterans from a variety of different posts, it was not in support of the proposal to rehabilitate the interior of the building. the charge was to really looked at what the plans are to articulate in terms of those in significant spaces and to the concerns raised by the public is an ongoing tenant and landlord dispute. it is related to the use of the property and not really the brick and mortar of the interior of the veterans building. with that, the commission determined that the proposal does sensitively address all of the significant interior spaces.

those comments were forwarded to the board of trustees until they continue their entitlement process. the department received a grant from the office of historic preservation to develop design guidelines for buildings. historic commercial storefronts to minimize impact for the public realm, we anticipate that project will began sometime next summer. that concludes my report unless you have any questions. commissioner antonini: think you for your report. in regards to the veterans comments, i know much of this has to do with concerns that they have adequate space for their operations. as we know with historical preservation, one of the things that we look at is historical

purposes of the building. historically, it was a veterans building. their presence could be interpreted as historical events. it has to be recognized to make sure it is preserved. the that as part of what i was hearing to them. is there an exterior edition that is being considered? has that been eliminated? >> it was originally proposed as part of the project and removed. the alterations were selected terracotta replacements. spot replacement by some windows and the replacement of the roof, it will be replaced with the zinc coating proved that looks identical to what is

existing and replacement of the historic skyline is that are visible from the public right of way. commissioner sugaya: in terms of the scope, the interior comments pertaining to was going on specifically? >> there was a motion to give very minor feedback on was a project could be refined. there are fine with the project as proposed. >> if there are no further questions, we can move forward on your calendar, you are now at general public comment. the members of the public may address you on items of

interest to the public. with the exception of agenda items, they may not be addressed in this category, only at the time the item is reached on the calendar. each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes each, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. >> my name is steven, i am the founder of the preservationists. i came by and told you that the objective of our club is to conduct ane ir, -- an eir, and i

would like to give you my secretary's number. 916-281-8268 if anyone would like to respond to my request. i realize we are a small group of activists. you're curious about our neighborhood of, i have written a draft and contract in the club with a little more legal clout. i have found out that the guidelines, any person may submit any information in any form to assist a lead agency that i assume you are in preparing of an individual study. i can use some of the

facilities, the initial findings are stunning. my group will continue to try to position ourselves outside of the media first, to expose the fact that the tower on telegraph hill and the art has never had an environmental impact report. this area that i consider to be a depository for all kinds of chemicals can contain groundwater, a significant amount that is dangerous to the public. as well as learning about the great depression. there are chemicals that are in hong themselves for the run off or the ground water, which is

expensive for me to get to. if there are indications that the hall report should be mandated from you, i hope to be able to speak to you through the sierra club, it supports us and i severely hope that we can hear back from you at some point in time, at least about the possibility of the first eir for this magnanimous spot that has had mining, and we really don't know what is out there. i hope that someone from your department can contact us so we can start a discussion. have a lovely day. >> i will work for a small business holding company.

the of like to start by announcing tomorrow is the start of ramadan. it is consuming any food. the documents and public, hope you guys find a lot of reward and you forget about some of the scrutiny that comes across the desk. and take some time to focus on some of the rewards that we have that work and the growth of where we want to take the city. the beautiful architectural project in the past, maybe someone who sees that will move forward in the future.

i found out that the church, if is a methodist church that moved out west. the people that inspired how it was laid out is thomas edison. i brought 10 outside the box said he is going forward. the tenants, is a small room paying rent. it transitions to number three, along income housing.

they just repeatedly rents it out. it is a public utility. if we see illegal things happening in the finance industry, we will go in and regulate. silent ambulances, proactively working to fill spaces. it is trying to pair with the owners. the planning committee. >> any further public comment?

>> we have pulled item three of the consent calendar, so we will take up the item now. for 100 california history. >> the project sponsor for previously approved project in order to extend the performance time for three years to july 19, 2015. the project was approved and we construct a six-story vertical addition for 6000 square feet of office space, reaching a total height of 267 feet. and a retail space measuring 1500 square feet.

i would like to give my presentation and keep it brief, i will havbe happy to answer any questions you might have. >> commissioners, thank you. i do not have any presentation but i know one commissioner has a question for me. >> will take public comment then. any public comment on this item? commissioner moore: when this project was approved, i was a full supporter of a, the only thing i want to assure, the way the extension is phrased, i want to make sure there are no other amendments other than the extension we are improving. i would request the project be reviewed.