>> the commission does not tolerate outbursts of any kind. it is not allowed in. take this time to turn off zero pagers and cell phones that might sound off during the proceedings, and even devices

that vibrate will disrupt the pa system. please speak directly into the microphone and we ask that you state and spell your name for the record. [roll call] the first category on the calendar is letter a, items proposed to continuance. it concerns case #20 10.03. it includes a request for a discretionary review any request for a variance.

these are proposed to continuing through march 17. and the next item, amending the planning and co to add a new alternative. and commission rules and regulations is proposed for continuing through march 17. i am not aware that there are any other items proposed for a continuance. commissioner moore: is there -- president olague: is there any public comment on items proposed for a continuance? public comment is closed. commissioner miguel: i move the items to the date specified. >> on the motion, i will have a

roll call. [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners. those items have been continued. you are now on your consent calendar. all matters are considered to be redeemed by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single vote. there will be no separate discussion unless requested. the item will be pulled from the consent calendar in considered as a separate item. i received word from staff that item #5, the annual inventory, needs to come off the calendar so it can have additional

information. case number five needs to be removed from consent. president olague: we will put that at the beginning of the regular calendar. >> is there a motion? president olague: is there public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore: motion to item five being removed from the calendar. >> approving item number four. [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners. item number 4 has been improved

on consent. -- approved on consent. item a. commissioner antonini: i think they were first. commissioner moore: interesting statistics, a follow-up to the house and plan discussion the other week. in an international survey, australian homes are the most [inaudible] the united states in general is seen as the cheapest country given the amount of mass production we have in a house

in -- in housing. when it comes to prices in the united states, the most expensive communities in the country are san francisco and and san jose. they are the least affordable housing market. it is considered severely unaffordable. the major metropolitan markets, the homes cost seven times the income. new york is 6.1 . los angeles is 5.9. it puts another level of complexity on how we discuss housing per se.

it is really fascinating. commissioner miguel: this week, i met with some of the neighbors regarding an item -- yeah, i'll speak louder. the mic's aren't working. president olague: we will have to take a 10 minute recess. i apologize. an expected. commissioner miguel: i don't know why this doesn't get on properly with sfgtv. president

>> we are back in session. commissioner antoninimiguel: i e pleasure being a speaker on electric vehicle infrastructure. because of our very old infrastructure. it was going to be necessary for electric vehicles.

the early responders and the public, but they are looking at the figures on prius sales. we ared ubbed the -- are dubbed the early adapters. you charge it in your garage at night. a majority of the population, we run into a totally different situation. it is a very interesting conflict. commissioner sugaya: last week,

i attended two meetings in japantown. one was a community meeting, there was no consensus and made at this point. it will be forthcoming. secondly, it was more of a tour put on by supervisor mirkarimi. we had a walking tour of the area. we were at a lunch where different issues were discussed. it was a short lunch, about 40

minutes. they had taken notes on each of the issues. he said he would be following up with the community on that. it was nice. commissioner antonini: think you to the design review team. we were able to participate in one of the sessions. they went through three projects very quickly. they very quickly got some ideas about what changes they would recommend. we met with other staff members in regard to the public safety building which is going to move in on third mission rock. because it is a public building,

unlike other mission bay properties that are private, and those are ones that we are involved in design review. we met with one of the architects involved. if the public is interested, it will be before the arts commission and it would be good to get an early on this and take a look at it to see if you like the way it looks. it will be something that is very visible there. it will include the police headquarters, the southern station, a new fire station and a historic fighter station will

be renovated there. commissioner borden: i had a question. they installed bike sharing stations. the city talked about by sharing, and can we have someone from mta talk about their plans there? just thinking about a broad strategy about how it all might fit together. it was a year-and-a-half ago now, it might be nice to see how that fits into the larger picture. commissioner antonini: maybe i will ask the mta to give you a status. president olague: i had requested that. i ran into timothy at sustainability discussions like the swedish consulates and

comparing the sustainable policies with san francisco. they mentioned they have a lot of things at work. i think that maybe after we get through these heavy items, i know the commissioner had presented a list. they will start getting policy issues in the summer. they can come in and update us on some of the plans the mta has as far as sustainability issues are concerned. commissioner moore: [inaudible] here we go. she controls it. i had to unexpectedly canceled

yesterday's's meeting. i talked and told her that i would reschedule. and there is an informal ability for commissioners to draw -- drop. it is adding a bretath of fresh air. she will reschedule. commissioner fong or commissioner sugaya or anybody else can decide to go along. that is the review team that the department. -- at the department. >> thank you, commissioners. letter d, a director's report.

under review of the events. >> i wanted to remind you if you have any final comments on the housing element to try to get those two staff in the next few days. we would like to get you the final edit the diversion of about two weeks in advance of the hearing. -- the final version about two weeks in advance of the hearing. we have tentatively scheduled a morning hearing march 17. the calendar shows that to be an informational hearing. there will be a morning hearing that day on that item. there was no board of appeals meeting this week, so there is no report. >> i will share with you the activities of the board of

supervisors. the land use committee heard an ordinance that would amend the area plan labor criteria for affordable housing. one of the conditions is if it has affordable housing. on december 9, 2010, as part of the proposed ordinance to amend the visitation valley facilities and infrastructure. the recommended the legislation be approved as proposed. other than a respectful recommendation to supervise a maxwell that she continue working with all parties. the committee heard the ordnance and recommended approval of the full board. at the board of supervisors, we had an appeal as a discretionary

review case. at the full board, the neighborhood association made primary charges against the issuance of the candidates. the first concern was that they failed to conduct a district review of the property and the department conducted evaluation of the project in 2008. they concluded the existing druggarage was not a historic resource. he changed the scope of work from altering an existing cottage to constructing a new development. they already made conclusions that there were no resources or

the conduct an evaluation. -- the need to conduct an evaluation. it must be significant under the california register. they are willing to meet any of the criteria set forth, and they determined that it was not a historic resources and there had been no significant impact to offsites resources. the appellant claimed it would have a negative and the cumulative impact for resources. there was no substantial or credible evidence to support this conclusion that was listed in a potential historic district. with those points, there were many in opposition as well as in support of the project. the review process could have

been better, but the board believe that the planning performed adequate analysis of the neighborhood. the board upheld the project 11 to zero. i wanted to share mayor ellee introduced several ordinances, including legislation amendments to the planning code. these items are planned to be before this commission in april. that concludes the report. commissioner moore: i'm interested to see mayor lee's support. that cannot be taken out of sequence, is that correct?

since we are so close, we are basically in the process of doing the necessary steps. what he says does not preempt the larger sequence of what normally happens. >> they will be referred to the commission for action prior to any action by the board or other bodies. commissioner moore: is that correct for the eir? >> your action will be the first action that takes place on this project. with that, we move on to letter e, general public comment for 50 minutes. i have one speaker card at least for this item. they can address items within the jurisdiction thabut are not

on the agenda today. each member may address the public for up to 3 minutes and a 15 minute total time limit. >> kathleen courtney? >> my name is kathleen courtney, i'm chair of housing for the russian hill community organization. i wanted to confirm your request. the community organization requests that the planning commission continued the hearing for the discretionary review report on 1945. it is seeking clarification from the planning department and the

city attorney's office regarding the process for addressing the appeal of the categorical hubs in -- exemption in conjunction with the review. we want to write a letter to the clerk seeking clarification from the city attorney. there appears to be inconsistent and contradictory elements of the city's policies and procedures. in fact, the direction that we have been given suggests we had a similar situation