course up? and if we did this on places like legislation lincoln park and golden gate park, it would allow? >> ruark is managing open spaces in the city and we talked to them and they saw a clear distinction between the kind of facilitis that they manage, which tend to be larger green, more sports-oriented and bigger. they have got lots of mechanisms in place, whether they work well or don't work well, to manage their spaces and this is really aimed at a different function entirely. there are mr. reasons i think and most people agree we should keep a distinguish between the two.

>> certainly the lady plaza is the first entry and it's frightening to go down there a lot of the timess and it should be different. so i think that is good and i certainly would be supportive of the same sort of thing for mint plaza, united nations plaza, maybe civic center, i'm not sure where these all figure out, who oppose them? also the embarcadero, or ferry plaza, i'm not sure what that area is? as you get down to the very end of market street, where the bocce ball courts are, that could certainly be cleaned up a bit more. so you think it's really a great step in the right direction. the three things that you said about the steward that i think was really framed their role excellently, caretaker, clean and maintain and discourage anti-social behavior. those are the three things and

i hope we have a way of monitoring the non-profit to get the rities. if they are doing this and not doing a very good job, i think there might have to be have mechanism to change them and put somebody else in. and then the final thing that a number of people commented on, i don't really understand. i come from a different place. there the attitude not allowing the blighted areas of someone who lives neighbor because it would add value. if they are willing to spend the to clean up and everyone benefits from it and their property value increases is a good thing for everybody. that is kind of where i come from, so i don't have any concerns about that. i'm just concerns that we get enough people do this and really make it work. >> commissioner hillion. commissioner hillis. >> thank you for doing more

outreach, because think it's confusinging, but you have done a good job of helping us sort through it. on the plaza examples, does the same entity in the city manage these now? how are they managed currently? >> that is actually one of the points that the program is a hodge poth hodge [po*-epblg/] dpw has some jurisdiction and real estate has jurisdiction and rec and park had a small permitting over lay. >> so if any of these came

under the plaza program, that jurisdiction defined one entity? >> exactly they all stay with the city and either be defined under -- if this we are street plaza under dpw and if they are a city plaza, under the jurisdiction of real estate department and that actually one other big refinement this program brings is that it allows potential stewards of space to know that they are either dealing with one city department or another, not a large number of possible entities. >> right. i think it's helpful to note a lot of these plazas are new and came about at the community's urging. these were plazas that the city built and took on and really didn't have a good way to manage it and rec and park didn't want to take it on and there were problems and this is solving some of it.

take jane warner plaza as the cbd. >> it's an informal relationship mostly because the city doesn't have a systematic way of managing the spaces >> right now they do do some light maintenance of the space. there is actually a neighbor merchant that brings the chairs in and out. and it really is just the community coming together to make that a new open space. so what we would like to do with that program is support the community efforts to create these new spaces. >> and actually shine light on it, too. >> yes. right now the program would allow them to have clear liability agreements with the city, because right now if they wanted to take a major encroachment of the space, they would have to take 100% liability and these agreats --

specifically we have worked with the city risk manager to make the barriers for liability for the spaces appropriate to the group and appropriate to the time that they are going to take it on, lowering barriers and liability. >> so the city would put out and rfp and others would respond? >> it's that open permit process that mirrors an rpm, that is correct. >> and whatever agreement, said the cbd that gets that selected >> correct. >> there are a hot of things that could be in there? >> yes. that agreement and very much like the city currently makes agreements for each major encroachment permit, that is

the agreement form that would be there. the plaza encroachment form and it would be negotiated plaza by plaza and allow for adaptation. >> thank you. maybe some of them rec and park would take them on, but they haven't and need to come up with a way to mantain and activate them and i think this is a great step. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, to staff, could you clarify, ken, you said you are the one who said that everything would go to the board. is that true for a situation where you issued an rfp and let's say more than one

vendor/steward applied? and you just rejected all of them. the rejections wouldn't go to the board? >> if we didn't find the rfp responsive, staff would reissue the call for rfp and not go to the board. >> and standards of performance? >> yes, we have built in the need for lot of evaluation processes here. whether we implement the program, we have committed to develop evaluations

>> would that trigger an evaluation process? >> yes, we have written into the administrative code legislation that the proposed standard term for an agreement is five years. we anticipate that generally there will be 3-5 years and probable will a little under. but we have allowed for there to be sometimes the term could be larger, past five years, but only in the cases where a steward is actually building the plaza and we would like to have them on the hook to maintain it over time as well. >> okaym one last question. what was the thinking for including formula retail? i personally would rather not have formula retail, even though it's conditional use. i don't think there are formula retail at the airport for example -- i may be wrong. >> there are. >> at the airport? >> yes, pete's coffee and a number of restaurants are

formula retail. >> generally, i think within the international terminal, there are not. >> that may well be. it was just consistency with you are overall guidelines and most neighborhood commercial district, where we're most trying to protect the character do allow formula retail by cu and to it seemed what was appropriate for the average nc neighborhood commercial district would be appropriate here. >> we think probably mccoppin would fall into that. >> i want to thank oewd for doing the outreach and it's heartening to hear the public say that and to see the comments and responses to them. i think the changes to formula retail was helpful and the

explanation of fear of structures being built on the site was really helpful and addressed concerns that we heard from the community at the time. i'm also supportive specifically of the changes to the sign controls. i think that makes sense for this program. again, i want to thank you and i'm supportive. >> commissioner antonini. >> i would like to move to adopt a recommendation for approval of this measure to the board of supervisors with modifications. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i have one residual question, naming rights, that was something that we were very concerned about? that falls pretty much in the discussion of formula retailing and the other one is that you are not intentionally showing a map. you are listing the most likely plazas. my question regarding that is how the plaza is not identified as p zoning in your own zoning map? so i'm just wondering what you have there?

>> the first one on the naming rights, to be honest, i think we agree we probably would want to stay away from naming rights. we haven't figured out how to codify that. it wouldn't be in the planning code. but it would be in the admin or public works code. i can tell you that we'll follow-up on that, but we haven't really figured it out. i might defer to one of my colleagues. i think that halladay plaza, it's not zoned? >> i have the map here april, 2013 and i think that is the latest map and it's not identified as. >> the introduce with halladay. >> john updike, head director of the real estate. i believe the issue with halladay might be with the fact that some of halladay is technically still street right-of-way. so when we go

through the secondary process after the programmatic is behind us and move forward with street vacations we'll address that separately. i think that would be the reason for the lack of p at halladay. >> i was just asking that because if your legislation coming in under "p" this would not be really addressing one of your candidate plazas. >> commissioners there is a motion and second on the floor. (roll call) >> so moved commissioners that mospasses unanimously 7-0. >> the commission will take a 20-minute break.

welcome tonight san francisco planning commission meeting for may 1st, 2014 and to silence devices and when speaking before the commission to state your name for the record. we left on items 11a, b, c, d, and f. for case no.s 2014-0187, c2014.01 9 c, 014.01 9 c, 2014.0233c. 2014.0234c and cause no. 2014.0236c. these are all formula retail or requests for formula retail ku authorization at 2675 geary boulevard. >> good afternoon, president wu and members of the commission.

my name is mary woods, of department staff. the conditional use authorizations for you are for six formula retails at the city center shopping plaza. the retails include chipolte restaurant, gnc, panyero bread, a star brunsing-brand target cafe and an salon. the shopping center occupies an entire city block, geary, masonin, and lyon city and has historically been occupied by formula retail uses. it was occupied by sears rob yuck . since r-6 formula retail are

all would need commission approximate the department's recommendation is for approval with conditions. staff has not received opposition to the projects. this completes by brief summary of the projects. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. thank you. >> thank you, project sponsor. >> just for the commission's benefit and public. the project supersonic sponsor give 15 minutes for combined presentation. >> adam miller sponsor representative. we thought it was good the last time we were in front of you was 2011 and give you the first-round of milestones that we hit at the property before we get into the six conditional uses in front of you.

2013 city target location opened on october 9th and highest volume opening for a city target store in the nation and continues to screed projections for the company so target was very successful using first source and other placements to really hit a very high local hire rate. and as you can see from this photo, i think the local committee was pretty pleased and excited. in addition, with completed a number of renovations that as part of the target opening, a number of those relate to the building facade, the decorative scions blade signage and updated and landscaping upgrades and new and enhanced

parking. this is the photo of before-and-after and the landscaping improvements that were done around the property to-date. in addition to this, we did a number of off-site improvements. new signaliziation upgrade to intersection of masonic and o'farrell and new single at terrace and upgrades through the mta's curb programs and continue to work with the neighborhoods and some of our adjacent constituents in further enhancing o site stuff around the property. in front of you we have six conditional use authorizations.

mary went through the list of tenants. in total generating approximately 110-120 new jobs at the property. the property and proposed tenants will continue to use the first source hiring program to hit local hire placements. and any city center has historically been a location for formula retail. all of these tenants are replacing prior formula retail at the property. mattress seller, this will be their first unit in the city of san francisco. they are going to occupy 3400 feet and generate three new employment positions. this is their location at property generally. a space plan for their space. and these next three slides are

just representative examples of their store interior. this is the before photo and this is the after rendering once it's done. we're next going to move to parking e, three tenants are located in this area, penyero, chipolte and gnc, i think it will be helpful to frame what is happening in the area. this is the before photo for this area and this is what the after will look like. the before where we have a canopy that is there, and existing storefronts, original store frants for the sears auto. and the after. so

this is where panera is located and representative examples. next is chipolte. the fast, casual mexican restaurant will occupy 2500 square feet and likely creating 25-30 jobs. again their location at the property. their space plan. and again, more representative examples of their interior. lastly for this parking lot we have gnc. they will be occupying about 1264 square feet. they are a health and nutrition retailer. they have 12 units in the city of san francisco. this is their location and parking lot e. their space plan. and again, a couple of representative examples of

their interiors. we're last moving down to parking f. this is the location of the former office depot space. this is ultra beaut spa, employment mid-to high 20s and occupying about 10,914 square feet and taking a portion of the former office depot space. here is their location. again their space plan. a couple of representative examples of their interior. and this was the before look -- [phrao-/] and this is what it looks like after.

we're adding windows to further enhance the transparency on this facade. lastly we have the star branded target cafe. the cafe use was originally approved as the cu in july of 2011. was identified on the plans and specific branding of the cafe was unknown at that point in time. as you know the city target store was a new incarnation and merchandising of the program was not finalized at that time. the cafe opened in conjunction with the city target opening in october. it's 880 square feet. it's accessed only through the target entrances. it does not have a dedicated access from the street and doesn't have dedicated emtower signage. the cafe is 100% owned and operated by target corporation and its target employees that run it. if they are working on the

floor, they wear a red shirt and in starbucks they put on a black shirt. all revenue s receipts from any purchases in the cafe are target receipts and not starbuck receipts. starbucks association is strictly through a license agreement, allowing the use of their branding. and the sale of their merchandise. they have no ownership in the cafe. the planning department had requested target to come back and seek a cu based on the starbucks branding. so that is why this is included in the six that are here today. here is its location on the first floor of the property. again a blow up of what it looks like. again, the arrow shows the entry. it's an entry ramp from the store itself.

the location on the exterior is in red. and as you can see, this is a photo of the location as it is today, you have to go through the target store entrance and turn and go into the interior cafe. one last photo of the cafe itself. that is the end of the sponsor presentation. one other thing to note, representatives from each of the proposed cu tenants are here to answer questions. we also have the project architect to answer questions if need-be. >> thank you. let's open up for public comment and i have one speaker card. karen flood. is there further public comment? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i think these approvals make sense. the shopping center has always been a formula retail center

and even when it began as sears and it's nothing new and they are doing a lot of improvements to the center and they are adding things that make it convenient, particularly for seniors, who have a more difficult time going different places. they can go in and park there and take care of their different things. and one thing that they did provide, which was very interesting, is the map that shows the formula retail on geary corridor. kind of stretching from webster to approximately 7th avenue. and they showed 44 different formula retail enterprises in that area. so certainly it's not anything that is unusual. it's the part of the san francisco where a lot of these various establishments have business with particular reference -- i think there are two or three different establishments that deal with

bedding and sleep products and things like that. so i think it makes a lot of sense to me. i would move approval of all of them, if we can do all at once. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> as the formula retail destination, which the center and has been billed as such, i think it's great to find tenants taking over smaller increments and basically clustered in an area, where you can do a lot of shopping all-in-one. the comment that i would like to make, that i don't think anybody can accuse this commission of being anti-formula retail. the only thing was to reserve the right to determine whether or not it's appropriate and where? this is again a perfect location. the provision of parking, the improvement of the center in and of itself, which was very carefully worked on for quite an extended time are all a sign

that this is possible. so i am fully in support of what is in front of us. >> commissioners there is say motion and second to approve with conditions items 11a through f. on that motion, roll call so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and places you on items 12a and b for case -- excuse me, 12ab and c for case numbers 2014.01 03xc and v for a request -- excuse me a request for determination of compliance, conditional use authorization and zoning administrator will consider a request for variances. >> good afternoon president wu

>> excuse me, if the members of the public exiting the room could do so quietly, we would appreciate that. >> good afternoon president wu and messengers the commission, kate conner planning commission staff. you have a request for two actions regarding the proposed 83-unit 100% affordable housing project at 1036 mission street in the south of market neighborhood. this site is located on the north side of mission street between 6th and 7th. the project site is currently used as an space surface parking lot and located in 3cg district. >> i'm sorry kate. if the person standing near the wall could get off the

automatic door opener please step off. >> the proposed 83-unit building is nine stories at 90' stall and restricted to persons and families earning month more than 50% of the air median income with 40 total units targeted for homeless persons and families or persons and families at-risk of homelessness earning no more than 30% of the area median income. there is no parking provided on site and 963 square feet of retail on the ground floor along mission street. a total of 149 bicycle parking spaces being proposed. the project sponsor will give a presentation regarding the design of the project, but i would like to focus on a number of policy and regular ory issues. in order to proceed the project requires determination under planning code section 309, including granting of