>> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i did have my -- that's okay. just a quick comment. this motion, as part of the findings and all the stuff that's in our packet, there is reference to shadows on parks. i voted against the motion previously on shadows, but i'll use the staff term on balance in this particular motion, i think i can vote for it. aye. >> thank you. 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'v

. >> president fong: commissioner sugaya. >> commissioner sugaya: yes. i guess being a car owner, being a car driver, not too keen on car -- market. i use market a lot, actually. maybe other people don't. but it's a diagonal. so it saves me time, having to go -- especially on the north side. if you have to go down and take a street, pine, and then go to van ness, and then down to market, it's easier just to go to market and diagonal down. saves gas too. anyway, i never been a total car-free person anyway. i have a question, -- not a question an observation. if you allow paratransit and other, like delivery and taxis, how are you going to treat the new form of urban -- they're not called taxis, this iewber, whoever those other guys are with the mustache on the front of the car. there are at least three or four that i think have started up. so that's a consideration, unless there is some way to identify them, i guess if you have a mustache in front of your car, that's an easy way to identify it. but i think if somebody like me participants in one of those

commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i only have one question. i'd like to take all these motions separately. >> okay. >> that's my comment. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i have a few comments. first of all, i think this is a very elegant building and the other day i was running up mission street and wondering why i like 560 mission so much, which is commonly the tenant now is chase j.p. morgan. and it gives a kind of greenish, rich greenish hugh, but actually much of that hue takes its color from the super structure. and the glass itself may be clear, i'm not sure. and these other buildings have tried to find the right glass and they almost always have glass that is not nearly as elegant as that building which probably has clear glass. i'm not sure what's planned for the glass color, but in looking at the color of the metal work, i am led to believe that the glass will reflect what comes from the metal work in there and that might be the best solution of all. i don't know if mr. clark wanted to comment on that or not, but it's importan

>> 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

aye. >> sugaya. aye. wu. aye. >> fong. aye. >> thank you. that's been approved as proposed. * >> are there any questions in matters? >> commissioner antonini. >> couple items in the news. the first was in today's "c francisco for the top city, i guess doing business, which comes as a surprise to many commenters and somewhat as a surprise to me. we will certainly take it. it might be based upon part of what was written in another article but carl nulte sunday when he talks about the sales force and good things we are seeing. however it was entitled, ignoring a beautiful and ugly city is crazy. i agree with carl. i believe he's made good statements. his comments, not mine, he talked about some of the people on the street. he felt they weren't just foreclosed homeowners but people who have long-term serious problems. yet everybody ignores this, has been for decades. i think he makes good points and ends his article by saying we pretend this doesn't exist. san francisco needs a psychiatrist, which is a well-written article. part of this, there i

. >> 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 didn't get caught because for some reason the city didn't catch them illegally, and so much time has passed that now it's okay to legalize the use. >> i don't quite follow that logic, and therefore i'm not in support of the conditional use, and it reminds me of the piazza market in north beach. they have a conditional use to do retail grocery store. they never turned into a retail grocery store and i think the same thing is true -- again north beach example and covele's book store and to sell coffees and sell books and things and i think that has gone by the way side and turned into a minirestaurant now and this isn't the only example in the city where there are conditional uses issued, and if i we

. >> 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 motio

. >> commissioner sugaya? >> here: here. >> commissioner antonini? >> here. >> thank you, we have a full commission today. commissioners, at the time of the printing of this calendar there were no items proposed for continuance and i'm happy to say that there are still no items being proposed for continuance. the first category on calendar is the consent calendar. item 1 and 2 makeup the consent calendar. those items are considered to be routine. could you take your equipment outside or turn it off? thank you. there will be -- these items will be acted on by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so request. in that event, the matter or matters will be removed from consent and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. i have been informed by a member of the public that item 1 will be pulled from consent. but just for the record, i'll read them both. item 1 is case no. 2012.109 7c for 201 folsom street (a.k.a. 314 main street

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> would this return? i'm just asking. it's not a planning code change. [multiple voices] >> it's really up to you. it's a question of timing. the board can move forward without your recommendation. it's not a planning code. >> right. i think it's the understanding that the commission is supporting the idea of returning back to the housing. and i think we've heard from the mayor's office and housing authority that everyone is on board. i don't have a problem in supporting the idea. >> good. commissioner moore. >> so, i would leave it with the way of president fong summarized it and leave it up to the expert and the mayor's office and others to kind of fine tune what needs to be done in order to make this a correct ordinance. >> commissioners, your hearing report summary and your minutes will indicate your support of the general principles and policies that have been offered which you will entertain the resolution when it is put before you. >> correct, when and if. >> and, commissioners, do you take a vote? >> just to be clear, are you asking that come bac

. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> 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 sugaya? >> 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 sugaya? >> yes, there's been -- go ahead. >> i'm sorry, i was going to make a technical corrections and read the comments into the record. >> this is just a comment. there's been discussion of the amount of new open space that's going to be provided by virtue of our approving -- well, they'll be provided anyway whether we approve this or not, the argument's being made that one of the reasons that we should approve this is because there will be additional open space, back in 1984, there was a similar issue on a singular project, i don't know what it was, but there is an opinion that was written at that time that says it was not intended to allow developers to shadow existing parks by virtue of their offer to fund and pay for expanded park site and its development. this interpretation is supported by the title of the ordinance, park shadow ban, and the ballot summary describing the ordinance, etc., etc., anyways, so apparently there has already been a city attorney's opinion that the project th

commissioner sugaya, here. >> first are items considered proposed for continuous, item 1 proposed foreptember 20. item 2 at 2750 jackson street request for conditional use authorization is poapped for continuous to september 20, 2012. item 3, case 2012822c for 1863 post street request for conditional use authorization is proposed to continuous to october 25. your calendar states september 20. staff has advised october 25 is the new proposal date. item 4, case no. 2012.08 did 2, request for descreption review is proposed for continuance to october 25, 2012. further on your calendars, commissioner, under your regular calendar, item 13 for case 20111050dd at 2807 is being proposed to continuous for september 20 in order to allow for a settlement. and that is i have. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue items 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 1, 2, and 4 to the dates on the calendar but 3 will be to october 25, 2012. then, also, item 13 to september 20, 2012. >> second. >> president

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, a couple of things. first we were informed by staff he has not made contact with the police department, so we don't know if there are complaints or not. i believe the project sponsor but i think we need something from our end so if mr. crawford could make a concerted effort -- >> that's a good idea. >> to get something official from the department and also in my materials unless i am missing something i don't have hundreds of letters of support and if that is part of the presentation i think we need to see something more and thirdly in this interim period i think there needs to another effort with respect to the neighborhood groups in the area. >> 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 whe

>> aye. >> the commissioner passed 5-2 with commissioners sugaya and more voted against. it also was to adopt ceqa findings. >> recreation and park commission. >> yes, i would like to make a motion on attachment 7 and i would like to read it into the record. joint resolution with the planning commission to amend the section 295 implementation [inaudible] adopted in 1989 to one raise the absolute cumulative shadow limits on 7 park properties, union square, st. mary's square, portsmouth square, maritime plaza, willie woo woo wong playground and boeddeker park, and two, incorporate additional quantitative criteria for 9 parks, the previously listed 7 parks plus woh hei yuen park that describe the quantity coverage area sdraition times of time and days of year of new shadows and to adopt fiemdbacker findings under the environmental quality act with the amendment that i would ask the city attorney to read in. >> certainly, deputy city attorney, so the amendment would be the same amendment made by the planning commission, it would be on page 7 of attachment 7, and it would be o

. >> 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 some of these required to meet the needs generated by new residential development and population growth in the downtown. it also states in the nexus study that it is unlikely that this growth will take place north of market, is my interpretation, because north of market has essentially in the nexus studies where it's been built out. th

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, back to staff, just to follow up on commissioner hillis, so that we all absolutely understand the import or implication of approving the cumulative limit, if we approve the cumulative limit, it is not directed toward any particular project, is that correct? >> no, the action of the budget does not for -- >> so, if we increase the cumulative limits on all of these parks, create new ones for the ones that don't have them, conceivably, another project outside this area could come forth and say that we have a public good, etc., and therefore we fall under the now increased cumulative shadow limit? that is, none of these projects that are within the transit center district plan have any shadow approvals at this point? >> except for the transbay tower which is before the rec commission after this section, but theoretically, your supposition is correct, but because the qualitative criteria are written based on the shadow profiles of buildings in the plan area as analyze ined the eir, it's highly unlikely that another building outside this plan area will crop

sugaya. aye. wu. aye. fong. aye. >> thank you. that passes unanimously. case 2007.00789k, this is informational presentation on section 295 actions * related to transit center district plan and 101 first street, transbay tower. >> before joshua starts his presentation i just wanted to let you know the actions. josh has a schedule as well of actions related to the plan. as you know the board adopted the plan in august for the transit center district. the presentation that you have today that josh has prepared is specifically related to the shadow question. we are convening commission with the rec park in two weeks to consider the shadow budgets for the parks affected by the transit center proposal. this is a preliminary information only presentation so you have more detailed information about that before the joint hearing in two weeks, thank you. >> want to start? >> good afternoon, commissioners. joshua swisky, planning department staff, joined by kevin die of department staff, who sls -- who is also working closely on these. the slides. may 24th this com

if these are huge and changes and the feeling of staff i could concur with commissioner sugaya. but if they are some condition changes that try to address some of the concerns of the dr requesters, then that's something we do all the time and i don't know why we can't consider it today and get it finished. >> let me ask a question. did the dr requesters also just receive this most recent? >> yes. so, basically on october 9th staff was informed that the project sponsor in consultation with the dr requesters made minor refinements to the plans. on october 16 the dr -- the project sponsor provided updated drawings to reflect those minor refinements and specifically they included a change in the guardrail from a glass guardrail to a steel cable rail, reduction in the height of the rooftop penthouse to 6 foot 11 inches, and a change in the glazing in the [speaker not understood] window in the west facade to translucent [speaker not understood]. so, overall the changes i guess would be considered relatively minor but they don't address all the dr requesterses' concerns. >> commissione

. >> president fong: commissioner sugaya. >> commissioner sugaya: i think you moved your bar? that's what i remember approximate. you took out my favorite eating place and i thinkit part of your kitchen. i've been waiting for you to reopen and i think everyone else is going to vote yes. so i call the question. >> on the motion to approve with conditions, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, commissioner hillis, aye, commissioner president fong, aye. >> that motion passes unanimously and places you on the final item under your agenda, general public comment that's a 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. i have no speaker cards. >> president fong: i have one speaker card, dino. >> hey, how is it going in dino, i want to inviolate you to check out 474 fairly street, a neglected property. we've talked about finding some solutions to what goes on in mid-market and north of mid-market and one of the solutions is addressing neglige

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i'm not on the committee, buit would seem that if now we're talking about extending the process out even further, it would seem -- i think we discussed before ms. avery's willingness to perhaps -- i'm sure nobody's gotten this far yet -- perhaps come back at some point after, you know, she takes care of her family business, and we should keep that in mind i think if that possibility exists. >> let me interject some thoughts. first of all, thank you to the committee members, commoditier, moore, and antonini for serving on this. it's difficult and we started the discussion about a year ago knowing that it was going to be a tight time frame if we didn't hit any glitches and here we are with a little bit of a hurdle. i want to stress, and again, i wrote that in my letter to the subcommittee to try to expedite this process as best as possible so it doesn'tant become a detriment to the staff who are filling in for linda. i appreciate linda's -- all her years, and also appreciate and respect her desire to retire. so, i think it would be great if we needed he

. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i am particularly glad this is moving ahead. my firm did talks with another previous owner and was going to demolish the building. we dissituated him from doing that and never went ahead with that and it was fortunate and happy it didn't disappear and i am particularly happy this project is mere. i am quite supportive. i have a couple things to staff. in considering the historic status of this particular building was there any consideration given to extending the theater loft district of the building. >> that was addressed in the want and there are several buildings there and they thought it wouldn't be appropriate to extend the district. i don't know carolyn. i am pretty sure that was there argument. carolyn is here. >> that is fine>> i think it was filled in with a new store front and deeper than we have now and perhaps i'm not going to offer any condition or anything and i know there is language here they will continue to work with staff on the design of the building and materials and other things, so if further consideration

. >> madam secretary i have a quick announcement by commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. the historic preservation commission which ms. avery is also the secretary for presented her with these flowers. they wanted to give you these and from the hpc. and the commission has a card and we need to get your signature on here and we appreciate everything that you have done linda and i think commissioners add their peace but i add mine to that. >> thank you so much. >> how about a big hand for linda? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> okay. now you guys excuse me when i am mean for the rest of the meeting. okay. commissioners, if we can move forward on your calendar and again i'm going to ask that you try not to surround the door. it becomes a fire hazard. thank you. commissioners, you're now on item 15 for 1127 market street a request for conditional use authorization. >> commissioners, before ms. hilyard starts i want to introduce you and she's been with the department since february. prior to her work with the department she was the program manager at spur and worked for a preserva

. >> thank you, commissioners and public, if i may, >> i'm sorry, commissioner sugaya? >> the firm that i work for did some historic analysis work for the tgpa for the plan, since this concerns generally shadows on parks and not the project itself, i don't believe i have a conflict of interest, and can be impartial and fair in decision-making, so i'm just revealing that fact. >> okay, with that, are there any other announcements for request for recusal? seeing none, commissioner, i just want to point out that for the public especially, the joint commissions will hold one public hearing for both items on the calendar and when you come up to speak, you will address both items because you'll only have one opportunity to do so. following the public comment from the members of the public, the planning commission will act jointly with the recreation and park commission to raise the various shadow limits that could be shadowed by development pursuant to the district plan and incorporate additional qualitative criteria for two additional parks also listed on item 1 below, and t

. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, a couple of questions to staff. the transit center district plan area is larger than the redevelopment area, so it's only within the redevelopment area that certain [inaudible] from the development apply, is that correct? for example, commissioner wu, i think commissioner wu was saying that there was a higher affordable housing component, and that's associated with the redevelopment area, is that correct? >> that's correct. if i can get the slide up there, if i could put the map up to clarify. so, you can see the plan area is the more purely rectangular broader plan area of market street to folsom, the redevelopment area, you can see it on your screens in front of you better is a more regularly shaped subset, it occupies 2/3s of the planning area, all of the housing is within the redevelopment area, we do expect some units to be built outside of the redevelopment area, you know, maybe as much as as about a thousand units but most of the units are within the redevelopment area and regardless of whether built on priva