>> the low. -- hello. as the delta progresses through the city, it is becoming more and more vital that close attention be paid to air quality whether it is construction projects. i think it is feasible for more air quality actions to be taken. i feel it would be more beneficial for the standards

just to encourage changes for the overall air quality in the city. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i know of like you to address this possibly at a later date. the past 200 years, the wetlands have been destroyed over commercial development. we have a duty to restore the bailout. these are valuable retreats and living areas.

they have played development on development and growth. this project has been a volunteer based in denver. many would agree with me. i believe that governments and educations with experience should foist importance of this campaign in the hopes of counting the poor decisions that they made. >> we have two additional speaker cards. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i wanted to make a general comment about the legislative

proposals that come before the commission. you have one on the agenda today. what i noticed in the work that i do with different vantage points, there has been a number of significant legislative proposals coming forward in the works to modify the code, whether it is clean at and kind of consolidation proposals or policies. my concern, this is the work and i'd do, that it is very hard to know what is going on and in the conversation and it matters as opposed to behind the eightball coming to you folks as it is happening now.

i am not sure what the technical requirements are for notification. i am not an expert on that. maybe the zoning administrator can inform me but this is unlike a development project when there is a radius or a development list or some that are always notified. it seems to be much more random. some of the changes we have seen in the works are very very significant in nature. i would just ask that the department with the commission think about establishing protocols for how these proposals and once the bunning department receives them with the kind of stakeholders.

i don't know want to start with this but i want to raise this as a general concern. >> you are parties to the litigation, having been sued.

you try to find a solution where you can look to the needs of people and what were the needs of the neighborhood already? there is also partial preservation that is compatible. i will reiterate that. there are the need said i will mention that has been brought to your attention. in the past, that church was a free meeting space. this was a methodist church. we are the actual neighbors as opposed to what ever it is that was presented to you.

there are many involved in creating more senior housing. one group of be very happy to do that again. another thing that is needed is where -- let me mention the interest of those to litigation and this was the baptist church. i heard about this back in 2007. the solution is obvious. there is still one on nob hill. all they need is a non-profit developer. after the decisions here, i went and talked to be deciding

committee. she lit the trade. why didn't they come forward before? i talked to norman and they said that they were trying to do something. now, the mayor's office. they're waiting for me to send in the paper. >> thank you. thank you. >> i want to follow on a couple of comments.

the planning department has had this be the case for the past 20 years. there are a lot of changes and people don't necessarily know it. the citizens cannot call-up business licenses on the work site. the planning department can give businesses a list of every project and find out the status of compliance on the business license requirement. that is the only requirement that they put on the project. you have to keep an active business license. no one cares enough to figure out if it is followed. you need to go back to the permitting process everyone has known over 10 or 15 years that

there is a problem with final notices, final building permits, certificates of completion. this is the fracturing where there are no flags that say has this been issued and is this part of the problem. as a result, every project that does not have a certificate does not get reassessed. if individual units are sold, the units have a reassessment. if it is not individually sold, we do not get a reassessment. that means that the city is being cheated. that is a huge issue. we need to get on top of the final certificate of occupancy. i think the other issue that came up is maybe the requirements, the law should be amended in san francisco.

they are not residential. there has been a major implications in terms of revenue through the city. now, the mass. if you're having some follow-up discussions, that should be the question you should ask and the city attorney's office should be involved in. i am getting some things straightened out rather than continuing to push things under the rug. this has to be part of the solution. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to tell you about the memberships of the planning

task force. as you know, the task force was created by the board of supervisors. 26 identified in the legislation, one each by the director of the planning department and the transportation authority. three by the district 6 supervisor. there is some truth to a statement that was uttered in public comment last week but not all of us live in western -- that was by design. we certainly want local expertise of the task force but we did not want to be susceptible to the charge of parochialism. basically, we had appointments right down the middle of some of the residential requirement and

others being appointed citywide. there are some components such as transportation, open space, preservation where the most qualified applicant might not be the resident. and willingness to learn and to understand all aspects of urban planning was a key factor. i'm joined by a resident. since we began in 2005, two of the members died. one of them died alone in their apartment.

an extremely dedicated group of people. this is until the end of 2012 or the adoption of the plan. whatever comes first. that cannot come soon enough. we continue to be here. >> is there any additional public comment? public comment is closed. i guess next week and during commissioner's comments, of all make a request that we look in

little bit at the comments that peter cohen made regarding noticing and notify neighborhood groups because sometimes there is a disconnect. this has a huge impact on planning. sometimes the responsibility is generally at the supervisor's office. >> we can provide a summary related to legislative changes.

>> the challenge that we have and it should be in discussion. we often get that from the board as a specific piece of introduced legislation. we need to have some involvement for this. we are required to respond to a certain time. >> i would agree with the comments. i want to add that i would like -- the temporal nature of the whole noticing thing, i think that that is important.

>> if we can move forward on your calendar, you start your regular calendar with item number 8. >> this is a request for a conditional use to construct 98 units. this is comprised of two locks and it will be contained within two buildings. the proposed a mixed use building. this building but also contained two basement levels of parking.

a portion extends to washington street and along the frontage which would contain four stories. this is a required parking for the project. the project sponsor is requesting four additional parking spaces. this is the plan. while the review and consideration of the case before you is as a new project as a point of reference, there might be approval at the project site in january, 2005.

the approval was one building. this contains approximately 5000 square feet of commercial ground floor. the plan is a motion for that project which is available if you wish to access them in terms of the reference point. there are three letters in support from the housing coalition. there is support for the project. we like to see three or four parking spaces. three individuals have opposed

the project, a key have contacted the appointment on the basis that this is on side. the fee should be placed tours housing. on the floor plan, there is a unit being shown at the ground floor so. the project sponsor is electing to move that unit is the second floor. this was a matter of providing units that were comparable to the mix of units as proposed. there are three specific

conditions staff of like to incorporate those back. that concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time and consideration. i'm the property owner and developer. a little background. i am a san francisco resident, i have lived here for 20 years. i developed two projects in san francisco.

this is 120 units. i purchased this property to develop residential housing. my investors are pension funds for teachers, public employees, firemen, policemen. this project is entitled to. this is entitled for 62 units and 8 stories. i can't build the project. i'm proposing improvements to that. i believe they are distinct improvements. in particular, i am proposing smaller units in essentially the same massing. i'm proposing a revised design. in particular, i would like to highlight four differences. the first is a broader affordability. more affordability to a broader segment of the community. the average unisize is 1330

square feet. very big and large units. and no on words, they conceived it -- in their own words, they conceived it. there is a larger rate project. this is a project to be marketed 8 specific. the prices in this market, those are million-dollar homes. in contrast, i am proposing a mix of much smaller units. they average 915 square feet. they range from one bedroom that is seven had a square feet to two that are roughly 1150. if you take the one bedroom unit using the same math, that is a unit that is 500. that is distinctly more affordable to a broader segment of the community.

i am proposing a project that will generate twice as much affordable housing. the existing approvals require seven units. based on the math, 15%. i would be providing 15. twice as much on site. that is a huge improvement. we're proposing better urban planning. the element of the existing approvals is a driveway that spans the site and going from washington. there is a drop off. we are looking to remove those and replace it. this has been replaced with a building to maintain the urban fabric of the street. that is something that planning suggested and that we embraced. we are proposing a different exterior design.

i am trying to print my company possibly on architecture. we put forth a more interesting design. we're trying to outreach to the community. despite our efforts, we have been informed of some misinformation posted about the neighborhood. my team has tried to contact the people responsible. we will have that information available. in regards to the approval we're asking today, in addition to the recommendations of planning, we're asking for more car share

spaces. we're asking for four retail spaces. i want to make two quick clarification. i am a mountain bike rider. i live in a condo. i would like to provide every unit with a bicycle space.

and >> good afternoon, commissioners. can we get this light show? a point of reference to some of the items that were talked about. a very quick comparison between the project and the project that we are proposing. you can see the differences that

were mentioned. >> this vehicular -- the project is coming forward today for people which we believe is a contextual modern interpretation for the site.

this is masked by the tree over here. we see more of the building as we get closer. this is not dissimilar from what we have seen. also, this is a view from the corner of polk and clay. you can see some of the buildings as we go up the street beyond the project. the project on the right side of the street. if we were coming down from frankland, that is the building on the left. you can see some of the buildings of similar height on the left as we head down to the site. a very