but it is all about the community being the stakeholders and holding and driving the process of springing the kind of retail mix of the neighborhood. i thought it would be interesting. i don't know there is a way we could ever have anyone from this group come talk to us, but the way they have this insight into the trends and where things are going would really help us, i think, when we think about those spaces. and what they've actually said is they work with a lot of developers who build these projects and the spaces they design are the wrong spaces for retail and they have a whole host of reasons why that is true and it would be interesting kind of to understand that so that we could see be sensitive to the retail. often when we're approving projects, the primary concern is about the actual housing or the up stairs, but we don't think enough about the downstairs. ~ see >> commissioner sugaya. >> there is an article in the paper called third on third and i think in the bayview they're frying to start up an arts walk

on the third thursday or friday. ~ trying anyway, to kind of emulate the first fridays in oakland, which i thought was interesting. also, there was a piece in the business times about a brew pub or something of that nature wanting to open up on 65 taylor street. i don't know if that's come to the department yet, but i think the idea is that they want to sell like 155,000 different kinds of beer and to take advantage of the mid-market change that's been going on. 65 taylor is right at taylor and turk, which i remember very well, in the case that involves a relocation of a grocery store and also the relocation of a liquor -- beer and wine sales in that new location which we denied. and there was a tremendous

community concern about selling alcohol, not only to take out, but also to consume, i believe, in that area. and, so, it's just an alert to the department that i think it needs a conditional use permit from the commission. i'm not sure about that, but i believe it would. >> i'm familiar with the use in the same article. i don't know if they've yet come in for the permits. this would be on-premise sales versus off-premise sales which was the grocery store. i'll look into it and make sure they have obtained the proper permit. >> thank you. lastly, last saturday i was a moderator at a morning session for an all-day forum on social heritage in various communities in san francisco. and the morning session, there were various communities represented in town, chinatown,

the filipino community, south of market, the bayview and also the mission district. and there the presenters gave us an idea of what kind of cultural and social heritage resources existed in the communities. quite apart from historic preservation, which deals with physical fabric like houses and billions and things, this was aimed more at festivals and dances and language and that kind of thing and what sustains those ethnic communities. the afternoon, there were presentations by representatives from the sterling bank and their program to help small business. there was a gentleman from, i think it's called the geller foundation at university of san francisco where they have a program to assist small and family businesses about how to run those businesses and sustain -- sustain their retail and businesses in various

neighborhoods. representative from san francisco heritage and professor from southern california whose specialty is the barrio -- barrios in southern california and has written several books about sustainability and cultural resources. so, there are about 80 people in attendance and i think the upshot of this is we will be considering some -- a document from japantown concerning their cultural and social heritage next month. and then the people i think there in attendance want to continue to see what can be done in the other neighborhoods and to build upon this initial meeting. thank you. >> thank you. kumar. >> i wanted to thank the director, the zoning administrator and staff for including in our packages copies of letters of determination which in the past we never saw, but we're reading along of how you determine when somebody wants to legalize or

whatever, asking questions to you and you laying out of how you decide and what the rules are what you do decide. it is very interesting to me and i appreciate that you are including them. ~ commissioner moore >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters. item 7, director's announcements. >> thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. just a couple of announcements. i think as you know, the board approved the designation of our first historic district since 2003. finally the duboce park district was designated last week and the mayor, i think, had signed or will shortly sign the legislation. secondly, the department is starting its kind of more robust public outreach program, and the first will be -- we will be attending the sunday streets on the great highway and at golden gate park. that happens sunday july 7 from

11 to 4:00 on the great highway and we will be having staff at a booth with plans ~ and activities that we are doing in that part of town. so, that staff will be able to answer questions of the public in that part of time. and we will be attending several of those over the next few months as well. and as a reminder, we will also be doing a number of kind of educational seminars and webinars and different planning topics in the coming months. so, they're still being organized. thirdly, i wanted to let you know about a searsies of workshops we're doing with the market octavia neighborhood related to the adoption of that plan which called for what are called living alleys. these are workshops to design some of the alleys in that neighborhood. the first of those will be a workshop on july 9th from 6:00 to 8:00 at the hayes valley recreation playground center, 6 99 hayes street. this is a two-year community based program to design and implement a network of living alleys in the octavia area

which is called for in the plan. we are doing this in concert with the neighborhood, mta, dpw and we -- the idea is to get to a point where we design concepts for three alley ways in that neighborhood which could then be implemented over time. again, that's july 9th from 6:00 to 9:00 at the hayes valley playground recreation center. that concludes my report. thank you. >> commissioners, item 8, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners, cynthia hayward, planning staff. i'm here to give you a report from the board of supervisors meeting june 17. there are five items to report from monday's land use hearing. the first was the better market street plans and the better market street team provided an update to the land use committee and their presentation focused primarily on information that will be presented at the public workshops that are scheduled for july 17th and july 20th. and the committee asked the team to continue to provide

periodic updates to ensure the project moves forward expeditiously. and the next were the c-e-q-a ordinances. both supervisor wiener and supervisor kim's c-e-q-a ordinances were back before the committee. supervisor wiener noted this is the 11th public hearing on his ordinance. supervisor kim stated that she was pleased to see the two ordinances moving closer to each other in content. and supervisor chiu said he believes that the 11th hour is at hand and that the ordinances should move out of committee and to the full board. supervisor chiu proposed a series of potential amendments. they were not made in the committee level, but they will be addressed at the full board. both supervisor kim's ordinance and supervisor wiener's ordinance were forwarded to the full board for potential consideration next week. there is still a separate ordinance from supervisor kim that is pending for hearing before this commission and

before the historic preservation commission. and the second ordinance would establish a process for appeal to the planning commission of the environmental review officer's decision about modifications to a project. supervisor kim's second ordinance and the potential supervisor chiu ordinance addressing the same issue had been scheduled for july 25th before this commission. next was a project specifically zoning for 90 9 tennessee street and this would change the district of that property ~ from public to urban mixed use as the property is now privately owned. and this new designation was consistent with the adjacent parcels, and the land use committee concurred with the decision of this body and moved it on to the full board with a recommendation. they also heard the mission bay south redevelopment plan amendments and the land use committee forwarded the amendments with a recommendation to the full board. and then lastly, the cpmc

project was heard at land use on monday. on monday, the board land use committee heard the development agreement as well as the associated amendments. and as you know, this commission approve the revised projects for cpmc on may 23rd of this year. at monday's hearing the land use committee forwarded the project on to the full board. they did make several technical amendments to the da and i thought that two were particular of note you would want to hear about. the first is supervisor chiu sought a compromise to the commission's proposed amendment to remove the 7:00 p.m. closure for the garage at cathedral hill. he said a compromise which is the closing time will be set at 9:00 p.m. unless arrangements have been made for residents or institutions in the area. ~ and then secondly [speaker not understood] had included in the da a -- some information about the noticing requirements for the da and this commission had specified who would get the

notice, but did not include a duration of noticing time. so, the land use committee suggested a 60-day notification period. this week at the full board, supervisor wiener's package of amendments regarding mobile food facilities, food trucks was heard, and all three related ordinances passed on their first reading. one was a planning code amendment and the other two were a public works code amendment that would detail the locational and noticing requirements for food trucks. and the second was transportation code amendment related to permitting and licensing. and then by way of introduction, there weren't many, one that i thought would be of interest to you was that supervisor avalos introduced a resolution regarding historic "street signs" in the excelsior. the resolution would add the original street names as china, japan, and india to the current street signs for excelsior, avenue ~ avalon and peru

streets. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. >> [speaker not understood] the first was an adoption of findings for [speaker not understood] fillmore street. i mentioned this to the commission a few weeks ago, [speaker not understood], they do not have 11 or more stores in the u.s. they do have nine stores and leases for two more stores, one in healdsberg. [speaker not understood]. that is a different process than we had in the past where we had not counted establishments that were proposed, only those that were actually open. the board adopted findings, the findings would be issued in 10 days. there is a 10 day rehearing period. once those findings are issued, we would revise our policies to be in line with the board's

decision and interpretation of the planning code and we would amend our formula use affidavit to reflect that. so, people will have to testify whether or not they have leases for 11 or more stores. and also noted the name ms. rodgers had mentioned in the past, there are some larger formula retail use control changes that are being proposed by some of the supervisors, district by district, and, so, the department hopes to work holistickly and come up with overall solution to some of the issues coming up related to formula retail. the other item was 1 spruce. this was a discretionary review that the planning commission heard in april. the commission unanimously approved the project. that was appealed to the board of appeals. originally scheduled for hearing in july, but the parties had come to an agreement. there was a hearing last night, it reduced the size of the addition slightly and did some landscaping. so, all the parties seemed satisfied and the board adopted those changes. and i'm available for any

questions. >> commissioner sugaya. >> oh, sorry, never mind. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff here to share with you the results of yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. i did have one or two small announcements just to follow-up on commissioner sugaya's comments regarding saturday's san francisco architectural heritage summit. the department was a partner in that summit and preservation staff presented on the city's current landmark designation work program with a focus on the recently designated sam jordan's bar as well as our current work in the japantown and west soma communities to document social and cultural heritage in those neighborhoods. and we felt it was a great opportunity to continue a conversation that started at this commission at the end at the historic preservation commission last winter. and certainly when the jh comes

to you and the [speaker not understood] would like to continue that conversation about how the city can better respond to documenting that heritage throughout the city. one other small announcement was on july 11th, the department hosted a no zac clinic within the [speaker not understood] district. this was to provide technical assistance of the mills act for property openers within the newly designated district. there was a great turnout, over 25 property owners showed up, lots of questions and a lot of interest in participating in the program. those applications will go to the historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors this fall once they're submitted. and we hope to carry that mills act clinic on to the other existing landmark districts in the city over the next year. in regards to yesterday's hearing, the architectural review committee met before the

hpc hearing to review the design and provide feedback on two items. one is a new office development in the south landmark district of 272 brannan. overall the arc was very supportive of the contemporary design and gave the architects a minor design feedback to improve the project. the arc also reviewed some design modifications to the belie buildings at [speaker not understood] montgomery street. as you know, these buildings have been in a partial state of construction for almost two decades. so, it was good to see some movement on the project and the overall proposal will be before the historic preservation commission, hopefully by the end of this summer, early fall, and naturally there is a lot of interest in that project. and that project will be noticed to the community and the local neighborhood organizations. once we have an application

formally submitted. the full hpc had a very short calendar. they reviewed the e-i-r for the ferry terminal expansion. i think most importantly they provided review and comment on a national register nomination for 6 30 sampson street. this is the u.s. appraiser stores and immigration station. national register nomination is being initiated by the gsa. the commission was very supportive of the nomination but felt the documentation could benefit from a little more information about san francisco's role as a gateway city to immigration, especially on the pacific. and at the prepare the nomination to expand that documentation. so, with that, that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> mr. frye, thank you for your report. this is kind of a general question, but i think it

particularly is important when you deal with historic structures. permitting has to be gained for any kind of restoration work ~ obviously. and is there a time period for permits? it's often seen projects are begun and sit in limbo for years and they're eyesores. do we have any i don'txv on those type of things? >> we do. a certificate of appropriateness generally has a three-year validity to it until it expires and -- the sponsor would have to go back to the hpc for review. in case of the bellie buildings, [speaker not understood]s have been obtained during the course of the project both of which have expired and why c of a would be required to resume the current work. >> thank you. >> commissioners, item 9, case no. 2011.1356e - central

corridor plan, informational update. >> good afternoon, planning commission. joshua switzky with department staff. so, this is a brief update on the central corridor plan process. we are now in phase ii of the planning process. phase i was comprised the last couple years in which we basically created the big vision, developed the strategies to fulfill the vision through proposals for zoning and height and public, ground improvements, that culminated with the publication of the draft plan which you now have the hard copy before you to read at your leisure. the plan was published in april. phase ii of the planning process is sort of twofold. one is the environmental analysis process, the notice of preparation for the e-i-r was published in april and that e-i-r is now commencing and that should take, as you know, some time, probably 18 months to get through the whole

process about a year before we get the draft next spring. but during that process, while that's going on, we plan to keep this project on the front burner and continue to delve into the critical details of fleshing out the plan than recovered by major prep sails [speaker not understood] so forth in the plan. i'll go into a little more detail. that's the purpose of this briefing. phase iii is the culmination of the process where we bring it back together after the e-i-r process with implementation measures, ordinances and so forth for your adoption. for the next 18-month period, how do we know which issues identified. [speaker not understood]. secondly, we held a public meeting last week which was well vetted, 40 or 50 people were in attendance. we asked what do you want to talk about over this next year and a half? and thirdly, we're here to share that list with you and

get your feedback. so, the makeup of these topics, the goal of this phase is to really delve into some of the key details that haven't been flederction out to date. some of the broad basic proposals in terms of land use and building heights. we spent the last two years working on those and talking about those and we really framed the alternatives and those alternatives will be analyzed in the e-i-r, as well as i'm sure some other alternatives. while we wanted to continue to get people's feedback and read the plan and digest it and sit with the mainly components for the next many months, ~ major ~ we're hoping to delve into it in finer grain than land use and urban forum proposal. so if i could get the slides on the screen. we can just run through the topics. so, this is a synthesis of the list that we developed on our own as well as the things that came up at the public meeting last week. so, the first category would be things related to land use and i'll just read them off. i won't go into any detail, but

i'm happy to answer questions. one is requiring purchase of development capacity. basically setting the rules regarding far, transferrable rights, or any program that speaks to how people achieve sort of the maximum density envisioned in the plan. second is fleshing out the concept of introducing the plan in terms of the office and residential ratios on large lots. the plan proposes to concentrate mostly commercial spate in large part of the plan that allows some housing. how do we arrive at that mix. third neighborhood serving uses we heard a lot from the community wanting to make sure we get sufficient neighborhood oriented uses whether it be retail or other services. so, that's really controls and other incentive. commercial displacement, something that came up at the hearing last week. people want to see if we can come up with any strategies to mitigate issues displacing existing commercial uses. next, foyerv lereah tail coil, something we want to hear what people's opinions are. next, hotel controls.

definitely hotel are in the mix. we want to talk about what size is appropriate, where they're appropriate, any other matters related to hotels. next, arts and entertainment. we've heard both people's interest in talking about incentives for arts and entertainment uses as well as kind of strategies for mitigating any conflicts that might arise with other uses. next specifically the flower mart. this is a key site in the plan area and it of itself deserves a whole long conversation about the future of that property. and, so, we intend to kind of have a discussion about that. and last land use topic would be recreation and athletic facilities. this is something that came up at the meeting last week. next, urban forum, we want to talk about what kind of incentives we might be able to create in the rezoning retention for maybe nonhistoric buildings that really add to the character of the south of market.

next limitations on parcel consolidation, that's a key interest we want to delve into. setbacks and building controls, taking our broad height and form ideas and massaging them and working at a higher level of detail. and then lastly, design guidelines for key development sites. this relates to the fire marshal as well as other notable development sites or possible development sites in the plan area and really coming up with a more fine grain set of design guidelines for those sites. next, public realm. there's a lot of interest in really fleshing out the ideas for new public park on the block between fourth, fifth brannan and brian. we want to have more conversations about that. and then design about proposed open spaces, there is a slew of sort of other smaller spaces and there is certainly a lot of conversation we can have about those details. and then implementation, some things that came up at last

week's meeting included -- visiting what we can spend impact fees on in this area versus the rest of the eastern neighborhoods as well as priorities. there certainly have been priorities expressed in the eastern neighborhoods to date and there is a whole process set up with this new plan coming forward. should we revisit those priorities or add to them? and then thirdly, the geographical indication of impact fees. this came up at the meeting last week where people expressed interest in talking about how we prioritize expenditures geographically within the eastern neighborhoods in terms of where growth is happening and where improvements should be best targeted. so, those are the core topics that we think we're going to focus on. there are some other topics that have come up that are very important that we will be working on that may be in parallel with this process that relate to issues that are maybe a little broader than the central corridor, but -- or involve other agencies and

other kind of decision processes. if we can get the slides back up. and that includes the effective sea level rise and climate change. this air ca of the city is at a low elevation and we will be working with the port as well as other agency stakeholders in this part of the city. and there are some grant opportunities we have to look at some strategies for dealing with sea level rise and climate change adaptation. streets and circulation, we work very closely with the mta to get to the set of proposals that are in the plan, but there is a lot of refinement to be done in this whole separate kind of parallel public out reach and engagement and approval process. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] there is a task force set up and they parallel with this plan, with a whole broad range of stakeholders to engage in a plan to come up with an eco did district plan. some of those ideas will be feeding back into this plan before it comes to adoption. so, in terms of the process on how we plan to deal with these

different topics, one is finalizing this list of topics that can evolve over the time we have in front of us. and, so, what we plant to do is through our mailing list and our website, invite people to choose which topics they want to really directly engage on and at the same time engage technical experts whether it be from other city agencies or the private sector including nonprofit, advocacy groups, academics, developers to try to flesh out these ideas. with the help of all these people planning staff would develop essentially policy working papers on each of these popics, framing the issue and providing additional strategies for addressing it. then we would share these with the broader community and hold focus meetings as appropriate to flesh them out. ~ and then we would have these to inform the final decisions at the end of the process next year. so, that essentially concludes my presentation. we hope that this strategy and this list of topics will keep things on the front burner rather than going dark the next 18 months while the e-i-r is

humming along and showing up with [speaker not understood] proposal. we hope to really collaborate with people to flesh out the plan as we move forward. so, were that, i'm happy to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you. why don't we take public comment first. i have one speaker card, john elderling. would the secretary please distribute these to the commission? thank you, commissioners. i'm john elderling, president of the taco group. quickly, josh left two things off the list that definitely many of us want to see which is affordable housing, how to do it. the most we can in the central corridor. and number two, the future -- the youth and family zone and how to improve that and make it achieve more of its stated goal. but today i wanted to ask you to look at specifically the

macro economic strategy that really underlies this document, and what's wrong with it quite honestly. we believe that so far this plan really is based on bubble nomics, not sound economic planning for the city's future and the south of market part of it. a very interesting part of the document is the appendix in the back where the staff responded to our critiques that given the long-term average of only three quarters of a million square feet of office actually absorbs [speaker not understood] in the city, the 8 to 10 million square feet this plan would allow just in south of market is way too much. and the reason it's way too much is because the city is already committed itself as public/private financing for the transit center district and the central waterfront, the ports capital needs and mission build out. it's already committed itself to about 10 million square feet of office development and those locations already committed. and if you take three quarters

of a million square feet over 20 years, that's only 15 million feet of demand. and if you add 10 to 10 you've got 20. and that's not counting other projects in your pipeline and there's quite a few. ~ in other parts of the central business district. you just cannot be -- we cannot be as a city, act like kids in the toy store with an unlimited credit card who can just order as many office buildings everywhere and assume magically they'll all be built and transit center will be funded and the port's capital needs will be funded. it doesn't work. the reason it won't work is because office development south of market has an inherent advantage. the costs are lower. there are not super high-rises like the transit district. they don't need the same $100 square foot rents and they don't have the major infrastructure cost needs that the central waterfront projects do on port property. they don't have to carry that. so, they will be able to undercut the priority projects that you have already decided as commission we il