test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test >> welcome to san francisco planning commission. >> the commission does not tolerant any disruptions if you would like to speak on any agenda please fill out a speaker card and state your name for the

record. i'd like to take roll at this time (calling names) first commissioners are items proposed for continuance item one causation 4773 and request for continual. item two for 37 through 3781 request for yourself authorization it proposed for continuance in july >> any public comment on two of the items on the continuance calendar? >> commissioners david silverman on item one i'm

working with the it's entirely up to you >> may i continue? is for a use that we already have received a legitimate letter from the zoning administer for he's already

preliminary approved it it's a richlt but i would expect it to be a brief >> the 11th is okay. >> thank you. >> there was someone mentioned

we're off two two weeks. you'll be receiving a proposed hearing skweltd on next week because there are no items scheduled for the 27th you may want to consider rescheduling it. >> what was the continuance? >> item one to july 11th. >> okay. >> president fong and members i represent citizens concerned about seassistant district attorney chavez week it's on july 18th that was a date sought

by the project sponsor without consulting with the neighborhood. i'll be not available. i have requested - as soon as we heard the date had been set for july 18th i contacted the sponsor i proposed a week continuance i was told the sponsor client was not available speaker i immediately sent another request saying can we find a date or dates that are available i understand the commissioner is not going to be meeting in august for certain days. i received a written proposal but not anything from the sponsor and i would have preferred to come here with the

dates. but we ask the date be continued to a mature date so we can meet with the sponsor. and so my request is the date be agreed on by the parties >> and we have not heard from the project sponsor. >> the project sponsor is not interested in beyond july 18th. michael smith. i want to clarify i brought the continuance to the project sponsors and he said he wasn't available on the 25th which is the week right after >> thank you. >> we can't continue s it on the date agreed to we have to set a date.

and so my preference is to keep it on the 18th. >> i understand president fong my request would be that we have recognized the opposite side to this project. this is not much has been done with our input at all yet and so i think for purposes even if both sides the commission would give a full agreement to the option >> the commission could continue it on the 18th by the way, but they have to pick a date today.

>> thank you i understand the date in august. >> thanks i understand. and it's better for us to pick a shorter date than a longer one >> is there any additional public comment

subject matter. >> you can speak to whether you want it on july 18th or is it considered now for july 11th. >> whatever. >> we'll hear the full case. >> no problem. >> okay. >> you won't get a letter in the mail but in a moment you'll know the date it's continued to. >> any additional public

comment imply. >> okay commissioner requesting you u wisconsin. >> move the item one to july 11th and item to july 18th. >> on that motion to continue item one to july 11th and two to july 18th (calling names) so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously and practices places you under the routine calendar and there will be no separate discussion of those items unless the public or staff so requests and the matter will be removed. item 3 case 20 at 11 oak street

and item 4 case 4013 at 775 frederick street request for authorization. commissioners i have one spectacular card for item 4. >> thank you. the name is at tube. >> thank you. >> so my understanding is you're giving the permission for the is that a to have the license for the beer and wine am i right or wrong? >> that's what's proposed yes. >> i strongly oppose it. >> sir, if you like to speak to the item you can pull it off

consent. >> commissioners if it's your pleasure those will be the first on the other calendar. >> okay. any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? >> seeing none, none. >> move to approve item 3. >> second. >> on that motion commissioners to approve item 3 at 1100 oak street (calling names) so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under routine matters. >> a couple of things i want to report that the commission subcommittees from historic

preservation and planning met yesterday on the secretary search issue and we'll be meeting in a couple of weeks and continue to progress on that issue and a also want to comment on the unfortunate vote that heaped on the condo conversions regarding the lottery. we never had a chance to weigh in on this and i'm going to give my opinion. i urge the supervisors who voted for it to vote you against it and the mayor should veto it if passed. the original legislation by supervisor farrell was extremely focused and he dealt with folks who or who are owners and

occupiers. people who were trapped in a situation up to 10 years or longer they had to be co- owners with others people lose jobs it's it's a burn some process. it's basically a housekeeping matter and it's been completely distorted and it would do a lot of negative things particle eliminate the possibility of t ic matters. it's an opportunity for families with children it can't afford a single-family home but can purchase a building and accompany it definitely.

also further restrictions on occupancy that be really strict for i know that people were caught in a unit and couldn't move to i take it place in the building. to those are the future conditions >> and for those of us who live on the west side of san francisco and many homeowners i've had a lot of calls from people and in some people in my area they don't area about this they do care very much about

that. so that's not accurate as far as i, tell thank you very much >> commissioner. >> yes for members of the public and people watching this on sftv. the commissioners opinion is his own and don't reflect the commissioners all opinions >> any additional comments. >> commissioners if there's nothing further let's move to directors announcements. >> it's related to the meeting last time it was a meeting to go over a list of topics we would be studying with the community. we had a great turnout of 70 or 80 people reviewed a list of

potential list of thing. we're going to report next week on the topics for a series of meeting. and thank the public for coming out and listening. thank you >> thank you. item 7 review of past weeks event. - commissioner moore >> some of us wanted to attend but unfortunately were tied up with other matters. >> your weekly report. there were mobile food facilities the commissioners proposal was before them and also considered two pieces of legislation. one would amended the public

works code and the other the transportation code. in particular it would address the location of food trucks in relation to schools and food trucks that are with retail food uses. you considered this over a year ago. at that point you recommended approval of some modifications. the ordinance would have allowed mobile food facilities within rh and that other destroys. if those particles contained medical institution or a post secondary institution. there were also hours for operation that were limited. you recommended approval

modifications they were to identify the process by the planning code should be required for food trucks located within 50 feet of a particle that has a residential use. the supervisor respond to your request and broontd it slightly not only within 50 feet of a dwelling unit but 50 feet of a r t mo and accepted the modification if the truck is over 3 hundred and 50 square feet this would limit the location go i can describe if our interested. i think you're interested in forming a retail because it's a hot topic.

there are other ordinances pending before you. in the case of mobile food facilities this ordinance would q require the mobile food trucks may not be located within the public right-of-way in which formal retail is not permitted either with a c u or not permitted would result not permitted at all if the public right-of-way. and they also for this particular amendment there was a distinction on the definition of retail. this what include affiliates of restaurants either owned or a

contractual policy. with these amendments all 3 ordinances were recommended to the full boarded of approval. on tuesday supervisor wiener safety ordinances were approved on the first reading. you'll remember those ordinances include the stashth of a design department. it would create a public improvement you permit that would allow the dw p to accept the right-of-way improvements and we require the in kind provisions. and we also changed the fire code to clarify in some instances the public right-of-way maybe narrowed. so those 3 ordinances were passed on first reading by the

board. and commissioner mentioned earlier the condo conversion was before the full board it feels not heard by this commission but i've give to the press secretary that describes the recommendations on the board on tuesday arrest so i'll leave that. in final reading we have the preapplication requirement in the dr p district and a new district for art design uses on 1111 street. lastly there is one introduction that is interesting. supervisor wiener introduced a hearing request that required the city to insure that the transportation practices keep up

with the mta and the transportation authority o e and the office of the controller and the port of san francisco to work together and report on how the city as a body is planning to expand muni service. it will excuse to include an explanation of how it will be paid for. so that should be an interesting and exciting meeting. so that concludes my report analysis there's any questions >> thank you for your report. in regards to food truck legislation and i'm not sure i had a question if any of the deals of an evaluation of areas where the food trucks would be allowed in existence of where

the time of food is allowed. i've heard from some merchants they are opposed to it because they feel they address the needs that the food trucks would provided >> i believe the only location that will be in the underlying zoning district. and it it were next to a zoning district that enabled the use it would be - wait i'm - i have more details it does include the limitation on the public schools but on the limitation that no food truck may be located within 75 feet of an existing restaurants >> it's kind of like one the things we look at if the same services are available by

non-retail but we'll see. >> commissioner moore. >> and we as you were talking about schools and food trucks i read about a controversy between schools questioning the shorting of the distances between schools and where food trucks would be in order to have the control what kind of foods students can and can't have is that been discussed. >> it's at the limitation so within 5 hundred feet of a middle school and a certain amount of feet for high schools. and i assume it addresses that - i read the agreement or disagreement about the issues >> it's been over a year since

this commission heard the ordinance and the other ordinances were addressed and that's a guarantee good solution. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners if there's nothing further we can proceed to the general public comment. members of the public may address matters exempt with respect to items and i have no speaker comments >> any general public comment? >> next item. >> commissioners that will place you under our regular ca