. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that is a unanimous vote for approval. commissioners, you are now on item number 9. case no. 2011.075 2c for 1830 ocean avenue. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. i'm rick crawford of department staff. this case is -- excuse me. this case is to establish a 17,300 square foot formula retail grocery store doing business as fresh and easy neighborhood market in a space formerly occupied by rite aid pharmacy, a formula retail drugstore at 1830 ocean avenue within the ocean ave. nct district. the project will involve some modest interior modification to the exterior entries and windows of the building and new signage for the proposed store. the project would retain 130 existing off-street parking spaces at the property of which 46 are allocated to the grocery store. the store would seek to create a new on street loading zone along ocean avenue and will seek approval of the small curb cut similar in scale to a disabled access ramp to as

>> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on item number 10, case no. 2012.1 196 u, board review of the affordable housing trust fund. >> good afternoon, president and commissioners. the item before you today is an ordinance sponsored by supervisor david chiu which would require monitoring reports for the housing trust fund. before i give my presentation i would like to introduce amy chen from supervisor chiu's office who would like to [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. my name is amy chen and i'm a legislative aid representing david chiu. i'd like to take a few minutes and provide an overview for the affordable trust fund charter amendment. i should start by saying the supervisor is very supportive of the housing trust fund. he recognizes the importance of creating a dedicated source of funding for affordable housing development in the city, especially in light of the solution of the red

. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, the motion passed 6 to 1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> second, adopt findings that new shadows and the project, that the project would cast on eight open spaces would not be adverse to those spaces, allocate the absolute cumulative shadow limits to the project. >> second. >> six open spaces. >> commissioner moore? >> i think it might be appropriate for me to repeat my objections to the specific aspect of the project based on how i voted last week. and for those people who were not here last week the planning commission and park and rec together considered shadows cast by this project, however simultaneously we considered shadows cast by 11 other potential building which will not come based on their own merit in front of this commission and can reach a cumulative approval motion for 12 buildings casting shadows on 7 of 9 -- san francisco park which are protected under prop k. i voted against this because i believed that the magnitude of

. >> commissioner wu. i'm sorry, public comment on this item if there is any. public comment portion is closed. commissioner wu. >> i want to thank staff for working on this. i have made the request last week. thanks, staff, for working so diligently. i'm happy with the language. so, maybe i'll leave it open for other commissioners to comment first. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i have a question to staff. i just want to be on firm ground here with respect to the justification. it says on page 2, the first paragraph, based on these projections and consistent with the nexus study, i read the nexus study. and the next us study says that the impact fee documented in the nexus study is sub poed to be applied in downtown san francisco to fund park recreation, et cetera, and then it says see map 1 at the end of the report. map 1's boundaries of downtown san francisco don't include chinatown. it does include the tenderloin, it does include other areas of densely closed in neighborhoods. it also goes on and says that the impact fee revenue will be used to pay for som

commissioner wu? >> thank you. so, i agree with some of the comments from other commissioners around the public good in terms of transit infrastructure, open space, especially the 30% affordable housing that's going to be achieved in the former redevelopment area, i appreciate ms. moss's comments in looking at shadows, we should be looking at the people they're impacting so i am happy to see the staff went out to do the site visits but i think some of the characteristics of the parks were slightly off, i know there's capacity limits but i think repeated visits to parks shows that sports courts might be used for exercise or people may con ge -- congregate on them, they get used in multiple different ways. so, to that end, i want to talk a little bit about the impact fees. i wanted to understand better how the different impact fees are allocated from the projects and then also -- maybe i could ask staff to answer that question first. >> good afternoon, commissioners, adam from the planning department, i manage our pla

have your own distinct set of findings, i believe the hearing is for next week. >> thank you. >> commissioner wu? >> thank you. to answer commissioner antonini's question, i believe it is better to put that -- the requirement on the prioritization of the money in a resolution that the commission can consider separately, hopefully next week, can we calendar that for next week? so, that it's clear and there's a chance to be able to review it. following on this train of thought, if i can ask mr. switzky some questions, also in the qualitative description, it says that individual projects must demonstrate that they have refined the building design. i think my question is then, how do you prove that you have refined the design, how do you prove that you have not just taken the entire shadow allocation and just built to the edges of that shadow allocation? >> well, commissioner borden was asking this, i think we can as future projects come forward slow the design refinements and how projects have been shaped and to some extent, it would be on the project sponsor's architects to show earlier versions o

. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. so we do have the 2005 conditions in front of us and they fairly clearly state that the business shall be operating as retail store with wine tasting bar. i think it's really hard to support a business -- the business maybe doing well, or sort of a nice business owner, but it's hard to support that the original cu was not followed and i think it sends a bad message to other business owners that they don't necessarily have to follow the conditions of their approval, so i think it's possible for the business to condition to run under the original cu so i don't support the one in front of us today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, if you go on the internet i don't see retail sales and it's operating that way in violation of the original conditional use and seems to me that the argument presented because it's been operating for seven years illegally now it's okay because it's a nice place and the owner is a nice guy and everything else and i couldn't understand the argument because they di

commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed 6 to 1 with commissioner moore voting against. congratulations. thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 14, case no. 2012.09 28 ddd for 2000 20th street, requested discretionary review. thank you. >> are we done? >> ladies and gentlemen, we actually have further business to take care of on the agenda today. so, if you can wrap up conversations can take them outside, that would be great. >> okay. before staff starts, i have a protocol question. when is the appropriate time or how, when, can a make a motion to continue? * can i make a motion to continue? >> you can do that at any point. i mean, we've called the item into the record. you might want to let staff give its presentation. and when you get to commissioners deliberation, make the motion for continuance, or you can do it now if you want. >> if you want to explain your rationale. >> i've had some communication with staff with respect to the drawings and what has been presented to us to consider. an

>> yep. >> commissioner wu. >> following on commissioner sugaya's question, if at the end of the day if everything gets out from the plan but all of the shadow budget not used --ly use cloak y'all terms, is that thrown away or remain for some other building to use it? * >> it would remain. but we would posit that the criteria adopted with the budgets themselves would limit that to those buildings that fit those shadow profiles and so forth. so it is theoretically possible a building outside this plan could meet that, but it is also probably fairly unlikely. >> one other comment. in the future if that is found to be the case the joint commissions could act to change the budgets again. it is always within the commission's power to address those issues. >> okay. no further questions. why don't we take a 20-minute break. >> the commission is taking a 20-minute recess. >> thank you. >>> before we get start ifed i can remind everyone to silence phones. 1126c for 741 valencia. this is an informational hearing. * >> good afternoon, erica jackson, planning department staff. before you is the

. >> commissioner wu. >> linda, i also really want to thank you. we've only had the pleasure of working together for the last eight months but i couldn't have done it without you. i think becoming a commissioner on this commission is one of the hardest in the city and guided countless commissioners through the years. you have been a champion for the commission for the nndz of the commission, for the commission to assert its own important and that is important and also as a liaison for the public and helped them through the difficulty of the planning code and deal with the procedures of the planning commission so thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i like to say i like to thank you what you teach me and what you teach us every week and that is civil civic dialogue. i think you're an example for making this room a bright discussion, an informed discussion for everybody, and it is you holding all the strings of what is happening in your hands and doing that wisely every week. i only will say one thing about that picture. that was actually taken on the

. >> i am in support of commissioner wu, hillis and sugaya looking at this as a strange cu. if the law is indeed unclear and if indeed the commission at that time five years ago and only commissioner antonini would have been part of that would have been inclined to be nice . the reality is that our role is for to interpret the code in a manner that goes beyond our tenure here on this particular dais. this interpretation is why we try as best as possible to up hold the rules so this becomes rule of law and i believe in this particular case, even if you i am happy to hear that the owner has made contributions to a well liked place in the neighborhood and positive changes in the block i think it is the situation itself and the ambiguity of what was done five years ago where we would only be creating insult to injury by creating more complicated conditions and in the event this owner, and i hope he won't and sell the bar it would remain a bar and could take all the rights and nuisances that come with the definition of bar and for that reason i cannot support this. i make a motion

commissioner wu? >> yes. >> exhumefong? >> unanimously yes. * commissioner fong thank you, commissioners. the record will show you support the policy many >> thank you. >> commissioners, you are now on items 12 a, b and c. 12 a is case no. 2009.07 24 d at 28 33 to 28 35 fillmore street mandatory discretionary review on demolition permit. planning commission is still in session. thank you. item number 12 b is case no. [speaker not understood] for 28 33 to 28 35 fillmore, manned industry dr on the new construction of that project. and 12 c is case no. 2009.07 24 v for 28 33 to 28 35 fillmore and 2800 vallejo street, request for variances. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i ask the board for recusal because the company is i work for [speaker not understood] evaluation of the property. >> recuse commissioner sugaya. on the motion to recuse mr guy commissioner moore? >> aye. >> [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner sugaya is recused. >> good afternoon again, department staff. the case before you is mandatory discretionary review fo

. >> commissioner wu? >> so, i have some comments. i don't think they pertain to the nexus study in particular, but i think that overall logic is that chinatown is the densest neighborhood in the city. these parks are the most heavily used in the city. i think the call for a need for a particular attention to improvement is there. i would agree that i would have liked to see what's actually called out to be first in priority, but as i understand, there are c-e-q-a problems or other kind of restrictions that wouldn't allow that. so, i would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> would the city attorney be able to advise as to whether or not there are any other tentative language that could be added in order to satisfy both concerns with other citizens that for parks will take up all funding priorities? and that is their concern. i'm not speaking about myself. that is what the public asked me to communicate. and is there a way of adding additional language which indeed supports the idea of what is implied and described by

. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that passed unanimously. are there any other commission matters? >> commissioner borden. >> today is california west coast shake out which is a create awareness around earthquake preparedness. it happened at 10:18 a.m. and 9 million californians participated. the whole idea was to stop, drop and cover. basically in the case of a disaster you need to get under a sturdy piece of furniture or doorway. preferably under a piece of furniture if things are falling. i also wanted the public to know that the red cross launched an earthquake act available on both iphone and android. you can download the plan, send it to your family members, store your information, find where shelters are in your community. you can get notifications when there are earthquakes in various places. you have the apps to click a button to say i'm okay. so, if there is an earthquake you're feeling members can find out about it. i wanted to make sure the public was aware this resource exist and had was thinking about pr

commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioners, i apologize. i'm just getting ahead of myself. the first category on calendar items proposed for continuance, item on this week's calendar for continuance is item one, case number 2011.1407d for 2935-37 pierce street. a mandatory discretionary review and building permit application has been withdrawn. this matter is no longer before you for your consideration. commissioners, further on your calendar, item 11, 2011.1050dd for 2807 clay street. the project representative has informed me -- there is a letter in the files that they have reached a settlement. but the dr requester has not withdrawn the dr in writing. we need -- they are asking for one week continuance so they can get that letter. so the request is for continuance through october 3rd, i believe -- 4th. okay. commissioners, with that i'm not aware of any other item on your calendar proposed for continuance. >> any public comment on the two items, 1 and 11 on today's calendar? >> just a moment. let me turn the mic on. >> members of the commission, president fong, the dr re

commissioner moore >> aye >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, this item is continued to november 8. commissioners you are now on item number 15, case no. 2012. 09 10 d 2055 to 2057 greenberg street. -- green street. >> we'll take a three biological break. >> the commission is taking a three-minute recess. thank you. >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sari i [speaker not understood] of department staff. [background noise] >> at the fourth floor and not be visible from the street. it is setback between four feet and 8 feet from the dr requester's property and goes two light rails beyond the requirement the residential design guidelines. the residential design team has reviewed the proposal and not found any exceptional or ordinary circumstances. the department recommends that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. thank you and i'm available for questions. >> the first dr requester. whenever you're ready. >>> sorr

. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i would like to echo commissioner morris sentiments about bringing back the hearing; perhaps you in the department can engage the chinese press. i want to make sure we engage a broad group of people to be participants. >> commissioner antonini. >> when sarah is available i too would like to hear any updates that you may have in the future. >> commissioner -- >> maybe i think it is appropriate if you had a little sidebar that presentation regarding the development going on just south of there in brisbane. universal paragon is the developer. >> yes. >> maybe we could have a little short sidebar on that, and the connection between -- site and brisbane. john -- that would be really great. >> yes. >> commissioner moore. >> it would be helpful to get an update on the transportation improvements in the area>> because connection to a potential station in that area would be part of the discussion, talking about high speeds, modified electrification of the line. how does the plan reflect this po

make a motion, but before that, two things, i don't know if it's appropriate now, i know that commissioner wu had asked for there to be a resolution on the calendar next week. i don't know if we can -- >> [inaudible]. >> that will not be part of your motion, that will be for next -- >> it's not part of the motion. >> we have agreed to add that to next week. >> we don't have anymore meeting, i believe we also wanted to calendar consideration of discussion for the secretary search. >> i have already added that. >> i just wanted to make sure it was added on that. >> no, it's already there. >> so, that being said, i'm going to make a motion for the planning commission and i think we have to take these separately if i'm not mistaken, to amend section 295, implementation memo adopted in 1989 to raise the cumulative shadow limits on certain properties, and i don't have to go through them i don't think in our resolution, that could be shadowed by development pursuant to the transit district plan with appropriate language that has been suggested and agreed to by the city attorney as protections for th

. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i want to raise a couple of points i think along those lines, because i believe that what happened is thatyou want to have more affordable housing in the corridor; what happens in san francisco is we are incentivizing the zoning two words the pdas, there is no money for affordable housing. we are in a situation where we zone to allow more developer but the only categories are the week to see above 125% above ami. a i think that i have always seen this tension; we want more development, no one wants to -- we have to be careful about what it means to thelow income neighborhoods where there is a lot of transportation. i have another question about jobs. i want to understand also see the projection for jobs but i want to understand what has happened with jobs up until this point chucky are just a been quite stable over the last 10 or 12 years. what might be different over the next period that we are seeing an increase in jobs and need to make the housing and transportation to accommodate

. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i can support the continuance today but for the issue of not setting a precedence and it will be there and it's not just to make it a bar but make that situation difference. >> commissioner moore. >> i would echo the last point made and i think it's important to receive further instructions from the city attorney what it means when the business turns to over to somebody in the future and thinks it's a bar. i am in support of the continuance and i need these things in the hypothetical case it's called over to someone else. >> can i call the question please. >> yes, the motion is for continuance to december 13. the public hearing will remain opening and you have given instruction to project sponsor and staff and there has to be a public hearing on those findings. on that motion. commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> thank you commissioners. this item is continued to december 1