aquarium to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, november 7, 2013. please be devised that the commission does not permit any disturbs of any kind please silence all electronic devices. . and please speak directly into the microphone. i'd like to take roll at this time. (calling names) commissioners first on your calendared it consideration for items proposed for cases numbers 2001-c and initiating for 7875 and 901 california streets both

are for continuance in january. a case has been withdrawn. commissioners further on your calendared under the consent calendar item 5 for case 1095 market street a request for approval for continually approved is for continuance and the project sponsor has bun advised. also in your consent calendar we have received from the project sponsor case 44 c at the 1700 union street a request for continual use that you asked to disapprove staff is not

recommending continuance and you can take up the matter and have it pulled off of consent calendar and have it mr. the regular calendar whatever you wish >> okay. let's take public comment on the item 3 and consistent we'll hear that as the first item of the regular calendar any public comment? for items for continuance? . okay. seeing none. public comment is closed. commissioners >> i'll move to continue. >> second. >> so commissioners on the items a and b and 5 to the dates proposed (calling names).

>>. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under your regular calendar are considered round. there will be no separate motion and it came back can be removed from the calendared. i have one speaker card on item 3 i'm assuming to remove if for consent >> okay bringing it up to public comment on the calendar. teddy >> good afternoon teddy with at&t. we are seeking our support in the continuance today. at our last hearing

>> all we need to do is have it removed from consent. >> oh, we ask you continue our item until january 2014. >> we'll consider that under the regular calendar. so under your consent calendar it remains one female for case 2013 at the 750 request for authorization >> any any public comment? >> on that motion to approve with conditions (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero consent calendar consideration of draft minutes for the october 17th special and

regular meetings and the draft meetings for october 24th, 2013. >> any any public comment on the draft minutes public comment is closed. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adapt the draft minutes the regular meetings and regimens (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and place you on comments or questions. a couple of observations in regards to the vote on tuesday. and, you know, while i was disappointed in the result i i

was not commenting open the result regarding measures b and c but rather that a vote even took place. as most you, you know who followed the project it has been 0 through the committee if you count the original presentation and also a study on addressing height and a lot of things. i think in fairness to the voters it's very hard to vote on a be complicated issues based on sound bites and the issue is hard. so if there's going to be a vote on issues in the future it will occur in the beginning and not the end. if a developer hopes to invest in san francisco they might go

through years of carefully crafted projects and lots of benefits given to the city and still after court actions be subject to a vote it could quickly turn around our economy that is moving well, as we'll hear from the commerce. even there are some points that some things can go better certainly we've seen the economy go bust in the early part of this century. can oftentimes it's the political process not the sdieshlt of san francisco that turns away people that are interested if our city. i'd like to find out it's not a planning issue but the number of

votes to put a referendum on the ballot if we need to a looked at that in the future. there was a very good editorial in the san francisco business times it dealt with basically, the possible future possible project. but the point it made the opponents to this and other projects said we only want affordable housing and donates think unrealistic point of view and to have a beneficial project much of the money that's generated will going go towards affordable housing but nonprofits or government to be able to fund something that doesn't have some profit end to it. so i would recommended you read

that editorial >> julia couple of things. could we have a static report on the economy at some point in the near future. after that pointed activity involving the district attorney's office and some deadlines we haven't heard anything to date so if we could get a status report. also to staff i'd like to know the history of reporting on above market rate unit at 901 bush street. i believe when that went condominium there are one or two b m r units in there and i assume there's some kind of reporting mechanism to take

place so those are actually b m r. i just can't resist i don't think that one development is going to fail. the city building is more subject to any cycles than any political or other chimneys that have come along over the decades of building in san francisco. even proposition m has not 245ur9d office development to the degree that people thought that would. even now with the office boom there recent in the near future square footage is available for skoopgs so i don't know that individual one be single project

will have any effect on the future development of both apartments condominiums and other buildings in san francisco >> i want to take a second crack. i'll definitely support the idea that international investment is attracted to cities that have strong city governments that help to develop a equal playing field. however, in order to create a liveable city for work and play that high-rise development needs to be interpreted with rules to all. staff give us an update how the elect vote and how past

decisions be made and how will the voters effect in the future. we know this site will be developed, however, i like to see how the vote modifies what the vote has been brought to bear on our approvals >> i want to add that should conclude all the sequa process works on any subsequent proposed project. >> commissioner wu. i want to talk about two meetings i went to with commissioner ram. with the eastern and western selma. they asked for an update to the

plan. and so i believe director ram has asked staff to prepare a memo and have it at commission on on october 30th accounting i spoke and a number of staff and ms. rogers. i thought it was a great opportunity to tackle some of the big regional problems with affordable housing and the housing element and the marina. i hope we can keep the confidence going. all the talks were reported and will be on the website >> just a followup on washington postmortem. i don't know whatever side you're on and it was a well planned project the proponents

talked the be affordability issue being important. we certainly gave f this week in and out. i think it would be important to talk about what the city is doing about affordable housing in general. reading the chronicle we got into a decision about the arena and the arena is not going to effect affordability in the city. how do we get affordability back? do we do another bond that were can affordable housing be built on the lots. we need to talk about this how we can tribute to it >> commissioner moore. >> there was a lot of things on

the affordability i picked up a business times that quoted and i thought it was very interesting. we had a decision here and we all took a position i strongly supported and it made international news that is very good. >> okay. my additional comments? all right. we, move on to department matters. directors announcements >> here i am. first of all, you have a director's report in our packet which identifies the public outreach engagement website. it's a great planning related item of public interest.

so sorry. secondly a more specific announcement we had the direct environmental report that ended in september. however, the mta board will hypothetical a meeting on tuesday the third. and lastly i want to report briefly on a recent conventions that occurred here. a natural green kwejs kwemgsz that brought experts from the green wall realm to san francisco. the conference had people to initiate a task force that

resulted in a greener road map for san francisco. participating in that task force were a number of agencies as well as representatives from the trades and real estate and armed with that and the result of it the department it setting forth a plan to move forward to define some potential policy for the city. if there are no other questions that includes my report >> past events there is no board of appeals report. >> good afternoon there were no items at the plan use committee.

i have a large report there was a lot of other planning things on the board. on it's full board meeting supervisor avalos was approved on first reading. to replace the parking with maximum controls prohibit uses as well as to start to put in place a buffer between medical dispenses. and the most controversial was the controlled. this commission had a recommendation that the commission recommended a c u instead of prohibiting them out right. the supervisor did in his ordinance and it was approved on first reading. also supervisor avalos report to

have to the board of supervisors for the medical canneries. this ordinance will require the report to be given to the board and although this ordinance is not law we've known about avalos requests and it's on the december 5th calendar. this week supervisor campos said this needs more time for outreach and it was amended to the deadline of may 1st. this commission could submit a report earlier. we have the outreach strategy and quid input for more information. this is additional unfunded work

and we'll appreciate our support. there were a couple of appeals the first was for 1050 valencia with a negative declarations. this sequa plan would demolish a building and build a ground floor restaurants and no parking. this commission heard the appeal of the sequa document in july of 2010. at that time the department added the historic district and the commission affirmed the document in september of 2010. at the board hearing this week the appellants raised concerns about the neighborhood changes and noise impacts especially, as related to the mash threat.

the department said none of the changes required circulation and supervisor avalos asked about the threat noise and the changes. supervisor cowen stated that the last parking at the project would make it inventory for families. and supervisor wiener recognized the importance the threat but ask do the sequa process be upheld and the sponsor should work with the theatre to further modify their plan at the it was upheld. later in the evening the board heard the appeal for wireless antenna. this planning commission approved the cu unanimously it

was for a wireless telecommunication antenna that would be screened. the appellants submitted american people appeal without any justification other than their concerned about planning code and improper code by the planning code. and staff clarified about in their misrepresentations about the reasons why the board felt it was desirable and capable with the district. the supervisor lead the questions he thought about the code matters and the wireless guidelines and asked the project sponsor for the distributed analysis which they voluntarily submitted. after hearing all presentations the supervisor approved it and

it was unanimously. there were several items introduced but there was no commission meeting and there are a number that pending ordinances. the first has been sponsored by the mayor and board president chiu. it would allow structures to rebuild and it only applies to our district. the second is an amendment to the planning code and the administrative code that was introduced by supervisor wiener that would allow the structure and exist buildings that are on the same lot and would apply he rent control to those new secondary unit. so this is within you for 90 days. this would all the time the

distinction of an eating place based on food sales to occupant. and supervisor kim has introduced zoning controls but they won't be scheduled and, in fact, the supervisor is trying to get a date in november. these controls with pertain to existing uses in an area like market street and all south of market. this would prohibit for 12 months the issuance of any permits that pertain to commercial uses until planning staff can verify illegal units being built and to put together a