without insurance, it might be more cost effectiti >> good afternoon. this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday, june 14, 2012. before i call will, i would like to remind all of us to turn off or silence our cell phones. or any other electronic device that may sound off during the proceedings. [roll call] thank you. we have a full commission today. commissioners, the first category on calendar is items

proposed for continuance. item 1 is a request for conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to june 28, 2012. item two is 1340 natoma street, also proposed for continuance to june 28, 2012. commissioners, further on your calendar, items 14 -- adam 14, 2299 market street. we had a correspondence from supervisor wiener asking that the item be continued further so that the sides could continue to talk and try to reach some sort of agreement, hopefully.

the original dates that we were proposing to continue this too was through the 19th. staff planner is not here that day, but is your july 12, so we are asking that you consider continuing this item to july 12. and with that, commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on your calendar being proposed for continuance. i usually recommend that you take it up the call of the item because if there is a member of the public who does not know it is being continued. commissioner fong: is there any public comment on items for continuance propose? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner antonino: i would propose continuance of items one

and two to june 28. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion on the floors for continuance of items one and two. on that motion -- commissioner antonino: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner fong: aye. >> thank you, commissions. those items are continue as proposed. you are at your consent calendar. items three, four, and five are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote by this commission. there will be in a separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests. in that event, the matter or matters will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. commissioners, i have a speaker card for item 3.

just so you can be aware, that item is being pulled from consent because the speaker is in opposition to the project, but let me read them into the record. item three is case 2011. 165c, a request for conditional use authorization to allow the use of a religious facility within an existing care of wheeler-family dwelling units, and a residential house on family detached zoning district. item four is for 4149 18th st., a request for conditional used to allow and other entertainment use within an existing bar located in the castro street neighborhood commercial zoning district. item five is for 1450 post street. this is a mandatory discretionary review.

they have request to convert the building from 93 units to 92 units by merging two existing units into its -- into a single unit. again, understanding that item three has been cold, and following any public comment on the other items, which will automatically remove them from consent, these items are before you for consideration. commissioner fong: is there any public comment on items four or five? commissioner miguel: i move the consent calendar approval. commissioner antonino: second. >> commissioners, the motion before you is for approval of items four and five. on that motion -- commissioner antonino: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye.

commissioner wu: aye. commissioner fong: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. those items are continued as proposed. mr. president, would you like to take item 3? commissioner fong: yes, first item of the regular calendar, please. >> commissioners, we can -- going forward on your calendar, we are now on commissioner questions and matters. commissioner antonino: thank you. i have a couple of items. first of all, i want to report that the subcommittee between planning and historic preservation met yesterday for selection of regrettably a new commission secretary in the future, and we did have a meeting, and we have agreed upon a schedule of future meetings to set parameters for that process.

on other items, congratulations, of course, to the giants. a perfect game yesterday, which most of you have already heard is the first perfect game in the 130-year history of the giants, both in new york and san francisco. also kudos to lincoln high school. he may have read that it is the only high school in america or anywhere in the world that boasts two separate u.s. open golf champion, and there is also another int week. san francisco was the only city that has four separate offers who have won the four parts of the grand slam. i believe all four of these grew up in the sunset rfrancisco and were native sons. of course, it was a golden age of golf in those days, and

having nine golf courses in san francisco that have very challenging conditions makes this possible, and also, having a lot of families with children is another thing you need because you have to have people growing up here to be native sons and daughters. moving in that direction, i am hopeful we can continue to build towards increasing the number of families with children in san francisco once again. and those are my comments. commissioner fong: any other commissioner questions or comments? appears to be non. >> commissioners, before you move forward, i passed the speaker card for item 3 to the president. he realizes that this item is for the third item on the regular calendar as opposed to item three. with that, commissioners, i do not have a speaker card in

opposition to-3, which is on your consent calendar. commissioner fong: is there any public comment on item three of the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: in the approval of item three of the consent calendar. >> thank you, commissions. the motion on the floor is for approval of item 3. on that motion -- commissioner antonino: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner fong: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. we can now move on to directors report, directors announcement, and a review of the past week's events. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. two things to report of interest. one is the last night, we had the latest public meeting on the central corridor plan that was

held at spur. it covered the area between market and king and second and sixth streets. we presented last night our proposed plan -- our suggested heights and land use and public realm alternatives as well as a range of alternatives that would be carried into the eir. the other piece of good news on the front -- and you will see a memo in your packet today -- is that the mayor has proposed bill in the funding gap, so we do have the funding to move that forward during the next year or two. the second thing i wanted to tell you about was that the oversight board of the redevelopment agency met this week, and we approved our first project this week, instead of just looking at the financial payments that we have to make, which has been almost the entire subject of the previous meetings. the channel, the first billing

on the south side of the channel. the 273-unit product that investors would build on the south side of the channel. it is consistent with the zoning guidelines, and the board unanimously approved the project on monday morning. also, i would like to move to the board of appeals report. he tells me there are two cases that were previously heard by the planning commission that would be of interest. one was a case at 42 miramar, which for it -- was for the demolition replacement of a single-family dwelling. prior to the hearing, the requested indicated that his concerns had been resolved, and he did not attend the hearing, and no one actually attended your hearing on this. following the unanimous approval of the commission, the

project was approved by a different neighbor, who had not previously made any comments. there were a number of speakers with a number of concerns, and impacts to the feral cat population living in the existing building. bowing to the lengthy public process and notifications that had already taken place, and the compatibility of the project with the neighborhood, the board denied the appeal and upheld your approval of the project. the second case was 3139 goth, which involved four requestoers. the commission unanimously approved the project with the addition of the privacy buffer on the roof deck. this was in november. one of the original requesters appealed.

the board granted the appeal and also of health department and asked that new windows be frosted and a privacy screen be provided along the roof that. with that, that concludes my report. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to give you the report. there were no planning or land use related items, but tomorrow, there will be an official hearing on for the items regarding cpmc projects. tomorrow's hearing will be one of many, and it will be no action tomorrow. the hearing will be an overview of the action and develop an agreement. the project was approved by the commission on april 26. as the full board of supervisors, the first item was

a washington. the proposal is to demolish the tennis club and the existing surface parking lot and construct a new health club residential building containing 134 dwelling units, approximately 20,000 square feet. the board considers three items related to eight washington this week. first, approval of public trust here execute an agreement for sale of seawall lot 351 to the project sponsor. second, with ordinance for a zoning map and then to increase allowable height on a portion of the property from the existing 82 feet to 92 feet in one area

and 136 feet in another area. the third was ordinance for general plan amendment to reflect a height change within the ne waterfront area. the budget analyst office also defended its analysis of a valuation on the process. it estimated the net value to be approximately $96 million, which was approximately $50 million less than the value initially identified by the project sponsor. president chiu proposed four amendments that would have increased the financial obligation of the developer. however, none of these amendments passed. the board approved the three items by an 8-3 vote. parking would be able to be used by 55 spaces, and the new health

club will offer services for children who are not members of the club in a program administered through direction of parks and recreation. the next item was the building code amendment. this ordinance would amend the building code to reduce permanent size of efficiency unit so that the size is consistent with the requirements. the supervisor had amended the ordinance to apply only to new sections rather than existing units. supervisor olague request that i to go back to the commission and would like to see more analysis on how it works, who lives in them, and how much they pay. also, if you like to learn more

about the quality of life issues, supervisor kim propose such units in her district, but they are not available by design. altman, supervisor wiener asked for continuance to july 10. the next item was the warriors' arena. the solution is not to apply the competitive bidding process in the administrative code for the real estate transaction. supervisor campos asked if this would bind future board actions. supervisor kim proposed an amendment to require oewd

require -- ultimately, the resolution with the amendment passed unanimously. the other item was including financial services within the definition of formula retail. the board held the second meeting for this item and voted 8-3 to approve registration. this commission recommended approval without modification of this ordinance on april 12, 2012. supervisors chu, farrell, and elsbernd voted against the ordinance. in terms of the introduction, the ordinance to amend the sanford cisco planning code and general plan regarding the transit center district was introduced by the board. these ordinances were presented and approved here at the planning commission on may 24.

that concludes my presentation. commissioner wu: i wanted to ask about the efficiency legislation. seeing that it is continue to july 10, and i think the closest hearing we have is june 28 before that, what kind of analysis can we do possibly for an informational hearing here? >> we would have to do a report in about a week to be in your pack of for that hearing. i will try to talk to staff and try to put together something for you. i too would not be as extensive perhaps as it would normally be, but i think we can put together some analysis for you. >> i have already mentioned this to you, but i wanted to say one way we could limit it is to look at the environmental review, whether or not the legislation requires environmental review.

commissioner antonino: i just received a memo, and i believe on our calendar next week, there is consideration of the resolution regarding student housing. that will be taken up next week as we receive that memo, but it was not part of the board -- >> i probably should have reported that i did convene a meeting that commissioner wu attended with several stakeholders on that topic. we heard a number of different points of view, and we have a recommendation for you on that recommendation, which would involve a six-month moratorium to give us time to work with the issues, a little different than what you were originally proposed, but we hope we can work out some sort of compromise solution. >> that is what i heard, and it

sounded encouraging. commissioner sugaya: i am not quite sure why i was doing this, but i did watch the building commission discussion about the efficiency units. it was quite interesting. i think there was unanimous backing from the building commission for this particular proposal. it was clarified that the 150 or so square feet is for the living portion of the units and the bathrooms and kitchens would not be counted. they were thinking that the unit would be somewhere around 220 square feet or thereabouts, and there are various reasons that i am sure we will hear about, but it was an interesting discussion. commissioner moore: i have been observing the discussion from afar and the incomparable that

older buildings are not included. it might be a good and solid idea to ask architects to comment on it because it does have the sponsor board from design architects. i went to talk to some people about it, and it is really in the new building design where there are great opportunities to deal with efficiency units and design, which meet high visibility standards. we're talking to the experts themselves, and having to ask questions of them might be very valuable. >> i am probably delving into dangerous territory, but the other thing to point out is that there are other planning code and building code requirements that remain in place such as light requirements and open

space requirements, but we can bring that all up at the hearing aid of the zero weeks. commissioner sugaya: i forgot -- one of the things they did kick around a bit were some ideas for increasing the ability higher ceilings. i know that there are light and air standards, but may be increasing those in some fashion and other kinds of ways that you could keep the square footage. that was discussed at the building commission also. >> this is not on your calendar, so we can discuss it when it is. thank you. >> just to mention, to complete item 8, the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. you are now an item nine, and informational item on the

residential pipeline. >> good afternoon. i am here to talk to you today about a change to the way information is presented to you regarding residential cases. this change stems out of the housing element that you adopted. the first implementation measure of that adopted housing element talks to providing data to the planning commission on the expected unit had an income level of proposed projects when we have it available. this change is also part of a number of things that the planning department is doing to increase your access information. we have heard from you and from members of the public that while we produced a number of reports -- and we produced a lot of information -- it is not always presented nor readily available. you have heard a presentation on the housing inventory and how production has been.

this is part of that continuing information, although this is something we will continue to see every week. i want to give you a little bit of background related to the housing element. the housing element provides something called the regional housing needs assessment. that is the minimum projection of additional housing units that the city needs -- that the city is estimated to need to accommodate projected household growth. the state does a lot of calculations based on job growth to estimate how the state is going to grow, and then to break down that growth to various regions within the city. the region's then break down that growth allocation proportionately among the jurisdictions within their entities. the association of bay area governments is the association

that would further breakdown that growth projection and the estimated housing units and allocate them to the various cities and towns within the bay area. generally in the past two regional housing need allocation distributions, it has been moving towards -- i will just shorthand it here, and more smart growth model while still keeping in mind fair share arguments in relationship to jobs. that gives you a little background on the regional housing needs assessment. the forms that you are going to see, as an attachment, reports on housing projects you will see moving forward. i will click on the overhead. it does relate to the regional housing needs allocation.

it summarizes the city's achievements in meeting housing needs, specifically with regard to planning entitlement. what we wanted it is if you are looking at a planning entitlement for a housing project, we want to compare apples to apples and see how entitlements that are moving on to date. a couple of things to note about this table -- it is based on information done quarterly. it is not a real time table. we looked at the possibilities of doing both. we want to give you the most accurate and the most up-to-date information. given the amount of housing units that we see and how we collect that information, we made a determination that it is vested in the quarterly because we are absolutely certain we have the right number of counts. the margin of error between having a real time and quarterly update is only 1%, given in

respect of the units over seven years, so we think that 1% margin of error is worth it to make sure that what we do have on a quarterly basis is completely accurate, based on the information we get from moh and the information we collect on ourselves. another thing to note is that the table collapses low-income and very low-income units into one category. with regard to planning a talent, many people are entitling and affordable project, and they do not always know the exact breakdown of income level. we can tell generally if it will be closer to the moderate and or the low income scale, with those units will eventually be rented or sold for is not typically known at the time of entitlement. it is no later, and you guys look at that as part of the housing inventory and the court of the pipeline report when we update this, but it is not something we know at the time of entitlement -- the quarterly update report.

this does not represent the full set of information that we are judged on by the state. when we provide reporting to the state on how we are doing towards our housing element, we provide them the number of building permits. that is a better measure of where things are actually happening. i will replace the chart right now with a table that more accurately shows how we report these things. this, i believe -- a version of this was shown to you, but this is a more accurate representation of what we provide to the state. whereby we are required to provide building permits, we like to provide entitled units, building permits, and then