but however the question is two-fold. and one is that and what i am weighing is the fact that what the intent subposely was and is no. codified and i am weighing that against the people's presentation of the intent and what you can see in at the pointers of the pattern of the lot and streets there. and as compared to the property span of the owner, and which, are important also and it is something that i have to always consider in making these kinds of decisions where it is either a yes or a no issue. you know? and i guess that i have made a decision on my position and that is, i am prepared to support the project of, on the

basis that the subdivision is conditioned. and the approval of the subdivision will be conditioned to it. as i expressed earlier, this is not the first housing boom that san francisco has experienced. we have experienced many since this development has been done in the 60s and in the 70s and 80s and 90s and the 2000s. i just think that it is easy to build on that green space and it would have been done in the 60s by the geller brothers in the 70s or the 90s. my concern to be honest is that if we fill one green space, the decision that this board makes pretty much determines if all of those green spaces are going to be filled. on the one hand there is

nothing written that indicates that these green spaces were designated specific and were to state green spaces. and both sides have presented strong cases to represent themselves. i think that if we close one green space we will have to close all of them. and i don't know if i feel comfortable enough with making that decision and it is not just one project it is all of the projects. >> so i will make a motion that we grant the appeal and over turn the permit on the basis that... commissioner hurtado may i make a suggestion? if you don't mind? >> no i don't, it is the end of the night. >> with the city attorney's

assistance i would encourage you to base your motion on the basis for recommendations that is in the planning staff, that is on page 4 >> there are two bullets that shows that it creates circumstances because it will not preserve and protect the character and stability of the development and not be as orderly and beneficial in the project and any other that shows that the project if approved will result in expectation and the project elsewhere in the san francisco development. and i would also encourage you to base your decision on section 76 of the tax regulations code which talks about the assessed on the surrounding property and residents. >> thank you i will accept those friendly amendments to my motion since those are suggestions, that seem reasonable given our discussion

and the evidence that we heard tonight and so he will adopt those into my motion. >> okay. >> if you could have a motion from commissioner hurtado. to grant this appeal on the basis of the excerpts of the planning staff as the analysis as read into the record and on the basis of the article one section 26, correct? >> of the business and tax regulations code. referring to the general interest standard. is that it >> yeah. >> and on that motion, to grant sxf revoke this permit, with those findings, commissioner fung? >> no. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-1, and the permit is revoked on

those findings, thank you. >> no further business. >> >> welcome to san francisco's planning commission regular

hearing for thursday, july 18th, 2013. please be aware that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, please speak directly into the microphone. and if you care to, state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioner hillis is expected to be absent and commissioner borden is expected to be late. commissioners, first up is items for continuance. item 1, 2013.0020ce - 6333 geary boulevard, an appeal of mitigated negative declaration is proposed for continuance to august 1st, 2013. item 2, case no. 124 mullen avenue, request for discretionary review has been

withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards on the matter. >> is there any public comment on these two items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> move to continue item number 1 to august 1st, 2013. >> second. >> on that motion to continue as proposed, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. and places you under commission matters item 3, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, excuse me for not necessarily knowing the name of this measure, but i believe it was prop c on last november's ballot and it has to do with

the mayor's housing policies and particular reference to the first responder down payment assistance. and i know the supervisors have been discussing that. and because we deal with this all the time, whatever kind of update we can get on what's going on because there's some interesting issues regarding what income levels it would apply to, if there are any restrictions, because this is a loan, i understand, it's not a gift that has to be paid back on the sale of the property. or whether or not first responder living in petaluma or fremont could sell their house and, you know, apply this towards their purchase in san francisco or if it has to be the first home they've ever purchased. so, these are some interesting issues that i think could be very helpful in putting more first responders within the city where they can help us in terms of disasters or when the needs are really high. so, any information that we can get from staff on where this

particular thing is apparently. the bat ballot measure didn't spell out some of these questions that i was raising today. ~ >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i want to welcome even though they're not here yet a group of students from something called the chinatown urban institute. they participate in a 12-week -- 8-week program. there's 12 students learning about community-based planning. they're meeting with supervisor kim right now and they're coming around 1 o'clock just so the commission knows who they are. >> that's great. commissioner moore. >> i attended the better market street workshop last night. i was looking for planning and i saw a couple. it was well attended and very interesting, and at some point i hope that somebody in the department, perhaps neil, will come around and give a brief overview about process as well as preferred alternatives. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, on a similar vein, perhaps we could have some

informational meeting on van ness, polk street since it was published in the paper today. >> [inaudible]. >> the changes from mta. proposed changes. >> commissioner antonini. >> and also in terms of meetings we've attended, i did meet with project sponsor and property owner of a proposed cell phone installation that will be coming before us. i forget, it may be 600 stockton, but it's on the corner of stockton and clay. and also i met with project sponsors in regards to an issue that's coming before us in a few weeks regarding pet food express. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters. item 4, director's announcements. >> thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. a couple of items in your packet today is a memo and a

report from dan sider regarding the transfer development rights program. it's a summary of a study that we had conducted with siple consulting looking at that program, looking at potential market analysis of possible sale of tdrs from city-owned properties. this was a result of discussions with several city departments and we did -- i think dan just yesterday had a presentation of this to the historic preservation commission and we're happy to answer any questions or have a future hearing on it if you so desire. we don't know yet if there's -- i don't believe we are proposing any legislative changes at this point. this is more kind of a market analysis and kind of a snapshot of where that program is right now. secondly, i just wanted to let you know that in your packet today that you'll get today ~ is a memo from me that -- regarding information that you requested about concentration and controls for restaurants. this came out of a discussion

that you had on june 20th on the 443 clement street project. this is not formula retail. it is related simply to the concentration of eating and drinking establishment. and that memo we summarize some of the current status of the general plan and the code amendments on that issue. and the code, planning code provisions on that issue and i'm proposing that we look at that in the context of the invest in neighborhoods strategy which is a strategy that a number of departments, including the planning department are involved in now in 25 commercial districts across the city. but again, that memo is in your packet today and we're happy to have a hearing on that at a future date if you so desire. and that concludes my report. thank you. >> thank you. >> item 5, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

ann marie rodgers, planning department staff. this week there are a few item that the land use committee hearings or full board at the land use committee hearing, the bicycle plan amendments and the planning code and the general plan amendments related to the 2009 bike plan were back before the land use committee. this commission recommended approval of those two ordinances on may 16th with some modifications. since your hearing, supervisor avalos signed on as sponsor of the ordinance and amended the legislation to reflect your recommendations. also during this time, staff heard from sfmta off-street parking division regarding some of the provisions for temporary exemptions of city-owned garageses that would have to comply with the new requirements. supervisor avalos in collaboration with our staff and mta staff made some amendments to the legislation to allow for such temporary exemptions that would be -- that were incorporated into the ordinance this week. [speaker not understood]

modifications, the land use committee moved the ordinance to the full board with a recommendation of approval. also on monday were the planning code and zoning map amendments for the yerba buena. this commission heard these ordinances on may 23rd and this week the land use committee hearing on the item was over two hours long. at the hearing, committee members questioned the successor agency staff regarding the value of the public benefits package negotiated between the agency and the project sponsor. there were numerous speakers in favor of the project, particularly the importance of the museum as a cultural institution. there were also several speakers in opposition to the project expressing concern over union square shadows for the most part. tom lip aloe, attorney for the 755 market street residential owners and friends of yerba buena state that had his clients are supportive of the mexican museum, but oppose the height of the residential tower. mr. lip aloe cited a study

prepared from crushtion, la that contest the conclusion of the eps financial feasibility study. specifically he argued that the assumptions regarding sales prices of the proposed units were inaccurate ~ and that the project could be viable at 351 feet height where there would be no new shadow on union square. a representative of kaiser mar stein who did a peer review on the eps study responded to these issues stating that the study itself was flawed because it overestimates the sale of prices of the proposed units at the lower height scenario. obviously fewer views, the lower down you go. the committee continued the item to next monday and this item will then be heard on monday and is expected to be sent out as a committee report to the full board the following day. also before the committee this week was the inclusionary housing ordinance. you remember this would amend the planning code to add a definition of a significant increase in residential

development that is consistent with the housing trust fund outline in the charter. this planning commission recommended approval of the ordinance on june 6. the board could only approve or disapprove, just like when you heard this item at your hearing. so, when they heard the item this week, they did recommend approval to the full board. the big show this week was at the tuesday board of supervisors hearing where both c-e-q-a ordinances from supervisor jane kim and supervisor scott wiener were before the board. in opening remarks supervisor wiener noted that there was -- this was one of many, many, many hearings on his ordinance inclusive of hearings before this commission. he thanks supervisor chiu for his amendments to improve the ordinance and supervisor chiu noted that he was hopeful that his amendments would result in consensus. he thanked supervisor wiener for compromising and for his commitment to good governance and thanked supervisor kim to

responding to the applicant. many other things followed. there were a lot of things said that day. supervisor kim stated that chiu's amendments combined the two [speaker not understood], and ordinance with clear procedures and deadlines while protecting the public right to know. the final version does require the mosting of all exemptions in a fordable manner and preserves the hearing before e-i-r. supervisor yee noted he was happy that pedestrian safety would be prioritized and supervisor campos noted he was happy to see the board working together and that the result struck the right balance. after numerous remarks were made, supervisors kim, chiu, cohen and mar all requested to become a co-sponsors and the ordinance was passed unanimously on first reading. also before the board was the ma her ordinance. you heard the presentation in may that would amend the health and building codes ~. you'll remember the ma her

ordinance requested proposed soil testing and it would specify how to properly handle it. the ordinance applies to the eastern shore of the city and this proposal would extend the geographic scale to the ordinance to anywhere is where it has ip creased potential for contamination. this week, this item was passed on second reading, also passed on second reading was the change to the castro street ncdu size as well as the amendment to the administrative code that will create the hunters point citizen advisory committee. so, there are a few new ordinances and hearings that were introduced this week i'd like to share. the first is a hearing request from bribed concerning the geary underpass filling. ~ supervisor breed as she described it will involve the planning department, mta, transportation authority, public works department, public utilities commission, and the rec and park department to begin

planning the funding of the geary underpass between webster and steiner. it was a corresponding reunification of the japantown and western addition/fillmore communities. also introduced on tuesday is another ordinance that would amend our formula retail controls. this is introduced by supervisor farrell and it would amend the planning code to expand the definition of formula retail, but just in the upper fillmore neighborhood commercial district. and then secondly, supervisor avalos introduced an ordinance that would amend the administrative code to direct the planning commission to prepare and submit a report to the board of supervisors evaluating the provisions of the planning code as it relates to medical cannabis dispensaries. so, those were the new introductions and the report for this week and are there any questions? >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, ann marie.

has that underpass -- has that already been finalized, so to speak? because i didn't know we had proceeded that far. >> it has not been. i believe this is just an informational hearing to talk about the concept. i believe that the transportation authority has done on a very preliminary basis at filling it in on the context of the geary street brt. >> right. >> but i don't think it's gone beyond that. >> okay, because it seemed like from what i remember it, it was one of the most expensive alternatives in the brt. >> it would be nice. >> yeah, it would be really great to do. >> commissioner antonini. >> ann marie, thank you for your report. a couple of procedural questions. the modified wiener c-e-q-a legislation passed on first reading, is that what happened on tuesday? >> that's correct, it will be heard again next week. >> okay. and my second question, the status of mexican museum project, now, that is -- the appeal has already been

dismissed, but the board is voting for approval or where are we on that particular legislation? >> i'm sorry, i missed your question. [multiple voices] >> yeah, i'm sorry. you reported on the discussions that went on about the legitimacy of the various -- >> that's correct. >> -- pro forma studies, but where is it legislatively? >> so, this item will be heard again at the land use committee next week and they are sending it out. i believe there was an appeal hearing that would be coinciding with that, the hearing of the ordinances. but i was looking to the city attorney to see if there was any changes to that appeal hearing. >> deputy city attorney [speaker not understood]. i think the appeal that you're referring to that was denied is the appeal of the e-i-r. board of supervisors did hear an appeal of the e-i-r and upheld the planning commission's certification of that. however, the -- some of the same opponents appealed the

historic preservation commission's granting of certificate of appropriateness for the project and they also appealed the 309 permits that this board -- that this commission issued to the board of appeals. so, right now pending there is a appeal of the 309 permit before the board of appeals. there is also the sud and zoning map, and i think maybe a general plan amendment -- actually, i don't remember that one. but there is legislation pending at the board of supervisors as well as the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness from the hpc. so, that is what is still in play. >> but there will be separate actions on all these, because one is an appeal. one would be -- or an appeal of historic and then the appeal of the 309. >> the board of supervisors continued the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness so that it would hear it on the same day that it would hear the legislation at the full board. so, those items will be heard on the same day, which i believe -- actually, i don't

know the date of that. >> this coming tuesday. >> this coming tuesday? >> i've been out of town. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> as to supervisor avalos's mtd legislation, he mentioned once when he was basically objecting to our approval of the three [speaker not understood] mcds in his district, that we were going to find the criteria that at the core of he's trying to do? >> yes, he has stated to staff and the director that he would like us to reevaluate our controls of medical cannabis dispensaries and to make sure they are still appropriate. particularly, he is concerned about clustering issues. >> and i think that is what the department -- what the department as well as the commission wanted for many years, because we feel that those tools are just not varied enough to make them very critical decisions. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night.

the board of appeals, but first 706 mission, 309 will be heard by the board of appeals on the next hearing which is july 31st. there is also a jurisdiction request on the section 295 determinations of the commission. the board of appeals rejected the appeal, but they attempted to file on that because it is not a permit and therefore not appealable to the board. but they have filed a jurisdiction request to have the board make that decision as well and that will be heard on the 31st as well. but last night's hearing was quite lengthy and the board considered several items i think might be of interest to the commission. there were a couple of dpw permits and public right-of-way. one for 75 mars. this is a project that the planning commission heard under d-r quite sometime ago and this was a encroachment permit to do improvements in the public right-of-way for stairs to connect to streets. there was also access stairs to a door on the side of the building that was on the plan that the commission had approved and neighbors were concerned this may create an

attractive nuisance. it is an existing stair that is being rebuilt. the board upheld that permit. there was also the first appeal of a park let, and that was at 39 30 to 39 40 judah street, [speaker not understood]. the board ultimately upheld this permit, but there were issues and concerns about concentration of park lets. this would be the third one within two blocks. there are some on the other side of judah on the next block down. there are also concerns about the loss of parking and impact on deliveries and whether or not there will be increased double parking there. i think paul of our department staff [speaker not understood] and he presented at the board of appeals and answered their questions, but they did uphold that park let permit. and two other items, one was a letter of determination i issued for 2101 mariposa, for the slovenian hall, a legal nonconforming use of the venue,

but it also requested that there was an existing legal nonconforming use in terms of the commercial kitchen. and that it could be used for food production not related to the operation of the hall. i didn't find any evidence, historical evidence of that. it's aes are gentian zoning district and that use would not be allowed. the board did uphold that determination. ~ residential and that item is final. and finally, 70 crestline drive, which was something that the planning commission had heard, you might recall that the planning department recommended denial of this project. planning commission approved the project. last night it was appealed by a significant number of neighbors in the community, quite a substantial turnout there. and the board did vote 4 to 1 to overturn the permit and so they upheld the appeal and denied the permit and they cited the staff review and recommendation on that. so, that's for your information. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

tim frye, department staff, here to share a couple items from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the department consulting gave the hpc an overview of a market analysis ~ of the city's tdr program. this report was also forwarded to the planning commission. earlier this summer, the study was mainly commissioned to provide the city information on whether or not it would be feasible to sell tdr from city-owned properties in order to fund essential seismic and rehabilitation upgrades to those historic buildings that are eligible and adjacent to the c-3 district. the item was just informational. overall the hpc agreed with the report and made some comments on areas of the program that warranted further study or consideration by the city. the hpc also showed its

enthusiastic support for the j. chess which is also on your calendar. hpc reviewed the c-e-q-a amendments that are also on your calendar today and after presentations by staff, zviv and swedener's office and a good deal of public testimony, the hpc passed a recommendation 6 to 1 in support of supervisor kim and chiu's additional amendments. ~ i believe staff will go into more detail about the hpc's recommendation and comments on that item once it's called. and then finally, the hpc is considering to initiate landmark designation from marcus brooks for article 10 of the planning code. the hpc, though, continued the item to its august 21st hearing at the request of the current property owner. so, on august 21st, they will take up the matter at that time if they do choose to initiate

designation on the marcus brooks building. it will then be forwarded to the board of supervisors for final consideration of that landmark designation. and that concludes my report to you unless you have any comments. >> i don't believe so. thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public can address the commission for up to three minutes, and we have several speaker cards. >> calling a few names. arnold townsend. derk butler. kathrin howard and dina adelphio. how are you, commissioners? good to see you. i don't get down here as much as i used to, and i find that a good thing, though.

don't misunderstand, i'm fond of you all. but not having to come down here is rather pleasant these days. i do -- i just rose to -- you have a project that should be before you, 555 fulton. it's a corner of fulton and laguna. it entails a housing and a grocery store. and i have just recently moved a couple of blocks from there and we would like you to call that item before you as soon as possible. there is an amazing pressing need, but i'm not going to make the argument for the store now. i will make that when the time comes. my argument today is to not to delay it and bring it forward. there are some -- that neighborhood is now -- it has a