commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes 5-1, with commissioner moore voting against. commissioner antonini: commissioner moore, did you want -- deduce a one and this by campus? >> the amendments need to be made in a certain order as prepared in the agenda. you could not take them item by item, but they cannot be taken by campus. commissioner antonini: should we do each one individually? what's the next item is ceqa findings. the development agreement is the last item. you make a recommendation and you do not have final authority on the d.a. you could take items a-m and n separately. >> i will make that motion for it we will move for approval of items a-m and i will not go into what each of these is. >> wait a minute. hold on. >> i want to point out that there were two sheets that were submitted to the planning commission for conditions of approval and the development agreement. i would suggest that that be incorporated into the approval motion. second, there was discussion about ad

commissioner sugaya: and the implication for cpmc would be what? >> i believe it would reduce the amount of parking that they are allowed to have. commissioner sugaya: then i do not think we should have a grandfather clause. >> noted. any other questions on van ness avenue? commissioner antonini: i think we definitely should have grandfathering, because we have a number of other products that are under construction. one would assume there grandfathered because they are already under construction. there are some that are approved or in the pipeline. also, there is the whole consideration of a lot of the housing trying to be built, in keeping with cal pacific. it might not all necessarily be in the area, but there would be an impetus for construction or more housing as part of the entitlements that are being -- that were passed for cal pacific. i think if we do not allow them enough flexibility to be able to build some housing that might have 1-to-1 parking, i do not see the decision from what we heard earlier. it seems like you're saying the same th

. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: move to approve item number two, two two two -- >> that is item number one. no. 2 is a consent item. >> oh, so move. greg second. cracks on -- >> on the consent to move item -- commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner antonini: aye. president fong: aye. item number two is considered to be routine and would be acted upon by a single roll call a convention. there would be no discussion of this item, as a member of the commission or a member of the public requested be removed from content and be considered at a future separate hearing. the item is a request for a conditional use authorization in a commercial zoning district. this item is before you for your consideration. president fong: any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. -- seeing none, commissioner miguel? >no. -- commissioner miguel: move approval with conditions. >> move approval with conditions. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner miguel: aye

commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: did you want to time index -- chime in? aye. >> that motion was passed unanimously. commissioner sugaya: next item. >> item 14, case 2012.135ddddd. commissioner sugaya: i asked the department to reduce. -- recuse. we have a direct financial connection. >> the motion to recuse commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: ay -- commissioner miguel: aye. vice president wu: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. >> thank you. you are recused. >> good evening, commissioners. department staff. the project is located at 2705 larkin street. this project proposes a four story over basement rear horizontal addition. originally, six requests for discretionary review were filed. however, one of the request was withdrawn prior to publication of the agenda. most of the requests for discretionary review have been filed due to concerns regarding the scale of the rear addition and its appropriateness, its impact to the

commissioner sugaya: ok. i am not quite sure how to ask the question, because i am not quite sure what i am trying to say. you said that cpmc, you had the comment that cpmc was a nonprofit and at the margin it would generally go back into improving the hospital. however, cpmc's profits, as we were told previously in the initiation, actually go to southern health. and it was my understanding then that cpmc asked for some type of rock or however you want to characterize it. such is not necessarily true that -- so it is not necessarily true that cpmc has control over its own profit margins. is that correct? >> i am not a financial expert, but i would say that in terms of that, you could replace cpmc with sutter which is the parent organization and a nonprofit. commissioner sugaya: an extension of that is the legal question of legalsute -- the legal question of whether sutter is the holding to this agreement or not. >> i am a from the city attorney's office. there is a legal entity that owns the property. sutter

commissioner sugaya: we're not talking about 1%, are we? on the 1%, testimony was given that what happens at 1% or something is that the rating company suddenly drops your rating down to some unknown level where somebody wants to loan you money or whatever. if that is the case, does that rating applies solely yoo-hoo cpmc, or because it is a subsidiary, how does that work? >> the data on the ratings that we presented earlier was not meant as a specific -- but we're not talking about the ratings, the point of that statistic was to simply look get the operating margin metric that we have in the development agreement and to show how that measure ties to the way of the operating margin for a hospital is viewed financially, so the actual ratings as an aggregate statistics, hospitals that have this level of rating on average have an operating margin at this level, so that is all it was designed to communicate. commissioner sugaya: i am being cynical, but is it possible that it can be driven down to that level, get rid of st. luke's, and then put

commissioner sugaya: i want to clarify the sidewalk language. i do not think these guys should be responsible for what their neighbors are doing. the implication is that it says "and all sidewalks of budding the property -- abutting the property." can you tell me how far it that those? i do not think it is their responsibility to do that. >> that means that it is what in front of their storefront. >> are they on the eastern side? >> anyway. it would seem if there is a problem, staff is already looking into whether or not the conditions are being enforced by the other establishments. i noticed that applies -- the sidewalk cleanup would apply to the two conditioner uses? >> possibly so. the sidewalk man's condition -- maintenance condition is typical to food establishments. >> there are four restaurants. >> the property owner is not here today, right? >> no. >> it seems like a little bit should fall upon the property owner. commissioner moore: i take issue with the loitering. i do not think that is part of what the planning code allows us to do. i

president fong: anything further, commissioner sugaya? commissioner wu. vice president wu: i have a question about dwelling unit density. just to make sure that i understand. this is removing the lot area as a limiting factor for dwelling unit density, correct? >> correct. vice president wu: building unit density does not have to do anything with the size of the unit, whether it is a studio or 1-bedroom. just the number of units. i just wanted to clarify that. president fong: any further questions? ok. public comment on this item. i have two cards, linda and tom. >> my name is linda. i want to speak on the parking changes for the van ness sud and rc-3 districts. i just think this is wonderful. quite a while ago, when the cpmc started, i came in and ran through the van ness plan, in case you had not read it recently. in the er, it is referred to as visionary. at that time, i said, there is just one little thing. they need to update it by eliminating the 1-to-1 parking requirement. thanks to the supervisor, this is proposed now. i understand that commission

commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i am totally unprepared, so -- i have one question on policy 2.17, to ensure the medical response is coordinated with the hospitals. other than the policy statement in the paragraph, can you explain how that might work and if there are, you know, if there is a disaster, how are the hospitals coordinated at that point? or are they left on their own to deal with the situation, so to speak? and are there any -- anything in here that can be used to direct new construction of medical facilities? >> that is a good point. i am jumping in because lily has been -- lily has brought this plan to the point you have it today. i began this back in 2007, when we first drafted this policy. the department of public health has been the overseer and the link to the public and private hospitals. it is pretty good for us to get back in touch with them. there was a good effort in 2008 where they were having a biannual roundtable. i do not know if that is still going on. that policy was

commissioner sugaya: there is a

commissioner sugaya: i apologize, commissioner antonini, for jumping in there. anyway, i still go back to my -- it is going to be a comment. that is all. my other argument that the city should have negotiated for the 73 million in the first place. then we could have decided how to divide it up, whether it would have been 29 still for the assistance program and the rest for building housing or whatever it is. i still do not understand why we are dropping below that number. also, it bothers me, as commissioner moore has said, that it is specifically targeted to cpmc employees. we had testimony from the man from the hotel who said his business was going to increase, he will be spending additional money, he expects to have 10-15 new employees. there is the nexus, right? it is not just not cpmc employees. everybody says this will be ed -- a big economic engine for the area. multiple new jobs created by these kinds of businesses. he is saying people are going to the restaurant and eat at cafes so more jobs will be created. none of these people are going to qualify for

commissioner sugaya: ok. if we took the 73 million in your average subsidy is summer between $200,000 and $250,000 -- >> 365 units. >> we gave you sort of a range of how many units we would use. from 260 to -- let's see, to 320 permanent units. yes, we would have slightly more units given the specific dollar amount, but the poll was based upon meeting the 220 bmr units, and we are exceeding those 220 bmr units. >> to gridley add something. the dollars a334,000 per unit fee is allocated with the gap between the cost of production and the resell cost of a bmr unit.the bmr program is for residents at the 90% level. at that level, there is actually very little -- in most cases, no other subsidy available in order to produce that unit. if we were producing units at that level, all $334,000 would have to be used to do one unit. however, we're taking that payment and producing units for 60% ami below, and the recycle money would be for access to a significantly higher level of subsidy, meaning that we could leverage

commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. commissioner wu: aye. we have a full commission. items one through five make up the consent calendar this week. they are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll-call vote of this commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless this commission, the public, where staff has any matters that will be removed from the consent calendar for a future hearing. item one is a request for a conditional use authorization to establish an automobile and scooter repair business with in the basement and second floor of an existing building located at 1528-1540 pine street, with accessory automobile and scooter sales located at the ground floor. conditional year's authorization is required to establish the automotive repair business at the basement level and the automotive repair years at the second belt. the project sponsor is requesting that the zoning administrator eliminate the of street parking requirements for the uses. the project is located within the polk street neighborhood commercial district.

president fong: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i have a conflict of interest on the environmental part of the meeting that will take place. with respect to public comment on the hearings that have been closed, and as it relates directly to the and fervent report, i think it should recuse myself on that item. i should also recused myself on item number three, transit center district planned certification of the final environmental district report. also 4a, adoption of ceqa plans. >> but you are ok to be here on item 2? commissioner sugaya: maybe not. >> deputy attorney. i would recommend you read clues yourself from the public comment item, because it would consent to ratification of the eir. you should recuse yourself on item three, however, you did not to recuse yourself on the adoption of the ceqa approval findings. at. th. at that point, the eir will have been adopted. >> what about item 2? >> i would recommend recusing yourself from item two as well. >> move to precludes commissioner suguya from 2, 3, and

commissioner sugaya come aye. commissioner wu, aye. commissioner fong, aye. the motion passes. you're now on item 12. zoning map amendments and the special use district 1, waterfront special district used to in three and special districts for sign elimination and special districts for cynics streets. >> for this one we would ask you not to get rid of these actions in district but delay the special sign district for elimination from the zoning maps. >> repeat the last part again? >> keith a. van ness special sign district on the zoning map but delete a special sign -- delete the van ness from -- elimination from the zoning map. that would prevent looting, blinking signs. -- looming, blinking signs. it is an old code provision that was not deleted. president fong: is there any question or comment? is there a motion? >> so moved. president fong: is there public comment, my apologies. seeing none, is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> on the motion to except staff recommendation. commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, aye, commissioner miguel, aye, commissioner su

tisch -- commissioner sugaya? none? anything related to transportation? commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: it was mentioned the parking lane was going to be used for trucks, and then as a temporary pedestrian facility. i just want to make a clarification on that. >> good morning. i am from planning. i realized that might have sounded a little funny. obviously, it cannot be used for both at the same time. at some point, the lane will be closed for track access, primarily during excavation. we have a lot of trucks that haul

commissioner sugaya: i think i know the answer to this, but i will ask anyway. at today's paper, there was an article on a 400 ft high rise that is being proposed. the article seemed to imply that the environmental review ha was already under way. i don't know if it is in the department or not. is there any kind of ceqa something that says there can be any kind of the way the cumulative impacts are, is there any kind of retroactive mitigation that can come about? or if the highrises going to make the traffic even worse that it is, is that right? >> someone from environmental planning will answer that. it comes as a community planning exemption. >commissioner sugaya: they will have to take into consideration, and i assume. >> being trapped here -- i guess the important thing in terms of this is a reminder that we all look at a list of projects, we look at a growth that was assumed cumulative for this project, it is part of that growth. it is not a particular building or a particular site, so did we account for this

commissioner sugaya: there is a source of granite in the city. you can call architect joe butler and ask him, because there is a stockpile that he knows of. >> to restore the sidewalk is already part of our requirement. just to go over on sheet a, 1 and 2 are ok, but not opaque. take away 3 and 4. section b1 and 2 are okay, but take away 3 and 4. and opaque. section c1 is ok. section d is ok. section e, both of those are ok. f, if you want to have them review the plans before i approve them, that is fine with me. commissioner antonini: thank you. maybe i can ask mr. marquez to go over these. how do you feel about these how do you feel about these change

commissioner sugaya: some blocks -- what is the average block? is it 400 feet? >> i think the width is 500 some odd feet, and 250 feet on the short end is the usual. commissioner sugaya: if it is 100 feet, it is practically the entire block in certain areas. >> if a store rents a space on the ground floor that covers the whole lot, they would have to not use 50 feet of the floor. that is the reason for the increase, as well as the floor area, actually. president fong: other question? next item. >> the next section is accessory uses. the perce item would include the -- first item would include rc zoning districts, which are residential-commercial districts located in areas like van ness and the tenderloin. it would remove numerical restrictions and in said stet -- set performance-based restrictions such as noise level. the legislation would also increase from one quarter -- from 1/4 to 1/3 the space occupied. it would also remove number of employees. it also removes intent of the primitive accessories. i have put in a chart that hopefully explains the intent behi

commissioner sugaya: one question with respect to that statistical reporting of moderate income. you were saying that in the report previously, that category is related to units that we know have deed restrictions. have they said income limits, if you want to call it that. but now you are saying that the formula -- the form allows for additional reporting? >> non-restricted units. commissioner sugaya: that will begin to account -- to take into account what he is claiming that. >> yes. commissioner wu: i want to confirm that the pending legislation you are talking about was the legislation that had been introduced by supervisor olague. you said we would be hearing an update on that? >> i believe in the aegean. -- in june. commissioner wu: thank you. >> if there are no further comments, thank you. we can move on on your calendar. thank you. commissioners, you are now out the general public comment. it has a 15 minutes duration. each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes each. the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. >> i had two speaker cards. >> good

>> [inaudible] commissioner sugaya: that might be difficult to figure it out. commissioner antonini: one group that did not comment today, but i have gotten a number of e- mails and letters. they have concerns about -- right now, there is student housing in some areas where there are the residential housing of other uses. this might be the akerson ready to provide some insight into that because a number -- this might be the time to provide some insight into that because a number of neighborhood groups were concerned. that is part of the picture we will be looking at. president fong: i want to wrap up. we are continuing this item am looking forward and hoping that the supervisors and staff -- i am glad we took comment today. it opened up to a larger group. i think they need that representation as well. i am glad we had this public comment session. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to continue this item to june 21. the public hearing will remain open. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president fong: aye. we wi

commissioner sugaya: thank you. i think you just argued against yourself, because of the program is so successful, then why create a new one? if there is a lower threshold of actual money at 100,000 or whatever it is now, it will go a lot further. lastly, i think the whole nexus that has been used to justify affordable housing programs for such things as offices and other construction is that it affects a lot of people, not just employees that are coming to the office building where who work an office building. therefore, it should be open to all san francisco residents and not as workers. thank you. chairmapresident fong? : any questions with related to enforcement? >> at some point, when we get to it, i would like to offer an amendment to that. >>just simply to include the reporting to the planning commission. it would not be necessary to have our approval, just an informational item. i would just like to make sure that it is there. commissioner antonini: i am not sure if we will have a section that deals with the

commissioner sugaya: some blocks -- what is the average block? is it 400 feet? >> i think the width is 500 some odd feet, and 250 feet on the short end is the usual. commissioner sugaya: if it is 100 feet, it is practically the entire block in certain areas. >> if a store rents a space on the ground floor that covers the whole lot, they would have to not use 50 feet of the floor. that is the reason for the increase, as well as the floor area, actually.

commissioner sugaya will probably be late today. there were no items proposed for continuance. it is my anders standing, however, that one of the d.r.'s on your calendar -- i had an e- mail right before i left, which is not always a good thing because i did not really have a chance to read it. but it said from mr. williams that one of his client had withdrawn their d.r., but that does not mean the entire project has been resolved. we will take up that proposed issue when we call the item on the calendar. with that, commissioners, we go into your consent calendar, items one through six make up the consent calendar this week. they're considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll-call vote of this commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the public or staff requests. the item will be removed from consent and considered for a separate or future hearing. i have two speaker cards in opposition to #five. commissioners, item number five is automatically removed from the consent calendar. let me read into record the other. ite

commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president fong: >> ok, these are d amendments for the legislation. the first one deals with the washington-broadway special use district. the second one deals with the waterfront special used district. this would move certain parcels from sud 2 and 3, so they corresponded to some sub-areas. it would also take a few lots better not included and the waterfront sud. staff is recommending that the first part, which would move the boundaries of boundaries ofsud to correspond with the general plan out of the legislation at the request of the port. we do not feel it is necessary. they fill it complicates the waterfront sud design process. and we agree with that. the second part, which would could a couple of blocks into the -- it creates more consistency in that section of the city. the broadway in special sign district, it can be kind of confusing. there is a description of the district that limits it to the broadway st. on the north east side of columbus. unfortunately, when they changed t