was not yet ready for the hearing and a continued its and will hear it with the proposed amendments. supervisors wiener wanted to open up a discussion and review the controls about how may -- they may be updated with the original ordinance and allowing active uses in this district. on tuesday, they heard an ordinance that we have been referring to as the act of god and calamity ordinance. it would permit the rebuilding of nonconforming uses and structures within certain parameters. this commission voted to recommend that they adopt the ordinance of modifications. specifically recommending that the modified in two ways. this should allow a reasonable degree of flexibility for those that have experienced a calamity but not overly permissive than

allowing the rebuild of these nonconforming uses and structures. you recommended a modification to include this retroactive date of august 1, 2009. the land use committee included the recommendations earlier this month and the full board continued the item by two weeks to allow supervised elsbernd more time. lastly, the board also heard a special use district also known as the king had were the second. the project related involves the renovation and conversion of an existing home district tourist hotel, and a group housing for transitional age foster care youths. earlier this month, the project withstood appeal and conditional use appeal. the board also voted to approve on the first reading.

they approved it on final reading. there are no new introductions that i have noticed that pertain to planning, so that concludes my report. >> of the board of appeals did not meet last night, there will be meeting next week and would like you to know that they only have four hearings left between now and the end of the year. they cancel the hearing for november 2 due to lack of interest. there have been fewer appeals filed. they are at about half the number that they would usually get filed. this is not to say that permits are down. >> commissioners, the historic preservation commission did me yesterday, just a couple of items with the historic resources survey was adopted.

and without a lot of discussion. articles 10 and 11, they have actually taken actions to adopt the modifications. with the modifications that we introduced, they have not completed their review of article 11. that will continue to their next hearing, it will be after your meeting on the twenty second. the commission president himself and other members will attend your meeting on the twenty seventh to engage you. and let you know their positions and why they took the actions they took, and where they are on article 11.

that is a conditional use item that is coming before you in a few weeks. and the president of this commission, president olague requested that they review it and because of its location to the armory. their belief is that the project should move forward. they do have concerns that the building will shake to the drill area of the armory. they are not some much interested in reducing the height of the project as they are interested in having a further setback to that side of the project, away from the armory to allow more light and. from what commissioner martin has proposed, also may be a look at the line as it overhangs

that area. and with that, they urge that the project move forward. that concludes my review. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. the maximum duration of 50 minutes. members of the public may address you on items of interest that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction with the exception of the agenda items that may only be addressed at that time those items are reached on calendar and not during this category. each may address you for up to three minutes.

>> 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,