closed >> motion to continue items 1 and 2. on that motion to continue the motions (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero >> and places you under our consent calendar calendar all maerpts are considered to be routine by the planning commission there will be no separate discussion unless the staff shall request and it shall then be removed as a separate item. the next one 17 ash burr street condominium subdivision conversion and at 400 oak street request for condominium

conversion >> my public campaign on the two items on the consent calendar. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> move to approve and second. >> on that motion to paragraph items 1 and 2 (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that passes 6 to zero and places you under item 5 draft minutes for october 13, 2013. >> any any public comment on draft minutes public comment is closed. commissioner and a move to approve >> second. >> on that motion to approve at the draft minutes for october 10, 2013, (calling names)

so moved, commissioners, that mansion passes unanimously 67 to zero and places you under item 6 commissioners comments and questions. >> yeah. a couple of things in the process that san francisco magazine has a very large section that spells out many of the addictions in san francisco it's very well done and talks about the projects the author did a good job but there's an article called rise to tenderloin and the author it gary and i say also the author of a book which is very good it talks about 49 different parts of san francisco.

he talks about the tenderloin and it's as expansion of his book and pose some reasons unlike downtown lane or other areas that are skid rows of cities that have approved the tenderloin is not changing significantly and he quotes a lot of different reasons this is true. it's definitely worth reading and i talks about zoning law and city politics and entrenched nonprofits. so i think he's on a very good subject and one that is worthy of consideration and i've often mentioned in comments i think we have to encourage old housing that is substandard to be sold

and renovated priflg and used to build new housing for the same people in the same places. we're not seeking nearly enough and that might be the situation where people who are victims of crime coming from outside of san francisco. a good article to read and an article on the open forum by a woman who's a daughter of a fellow named william garf was a builder privately in the past and her contention is that inclusionary housing adds to the cost of low-cost housing being built and she points to the housing bill allergy governor

jerry brown as appointed. and you know by state law you can satisfy all housing of protection levels will you not by inclusionary housing but it's a subject of many points. she says that it raises the cost of normal market rate lower or middle income housing that could be built if the costs for not only inclusionary housing but having to build in san francisco. it's it's a chronicle and they ran the same story on friday by another thorough it is interesting reading >> commissioner. >> yes. i think it was monday

wasn't it commissioner wu are commissioner wu and i were in attendance at a celebration for the dhs being adopted by planning commission and the board of supervisors. it was nice. there was a christian and buddhist ceremonies and lots of food and sacking can he to drink but most importantly talking to people afterward they realize the hard part now is because of the adoption of the strategies of improving japan town they need to get their act together. the direction they'll be taking is to combine the two organizations that have been working on the plan into one. i don't know if the same people

will be involved and to try to immediately go to the supervisors for some kind of funding to aid them to implement the plan. they don't want to wait around and try to form a new organizations at this point but that strategy comes later. anyway that was encouraged they have their mind to do something with the strategies that have been adopted >> thank you. >> additional comments. okay. next items >> commissioners that places you know stem 7 announcements. >> my only announcement is to congratulate sanchez becoming a father they had a bio baby boy and the baby is doing great. in light of that scott will be

out of the office for the remainder of the year he'll be taking maternity leave. that concludes envy report. thank you >> thank you. >> item 8 review of the past weeks board of supervisors and board of appeals there was no historic report. >> i'm here to give you the board of supervisors activities. at the language committee they heard supervisor avalos they heard the ordinance and recommended modifications. it replaces the parking with parking controls and a uses offer a 5 foot height bonus and institute a buffer. if i recall the most

controversial aspect of this ordinance was prohibiting the oc ds of 5 hundred feet of an existing oc. it was to require the additional use authorization instead of an out right prosecution. the commissioners recommendations were put into the ordinance and asked this revised ordinance be 235r9d to the board of supervisors. he split the file the other version requires a cu within a thousand foot buffer but wants to tax and they moved it forward. also at the land use committee was supervisor avaloss ordinance to have a report to the board of supervisors vaulting the current

controls for medical dispenses. the planning staff informed them we've started the work because it will take a little bit of work. we're tentatively seeking a place open 9 december 5th hearing for the report. at the land use committee there were 2 hours for medical use dispenses it was opposition to any new regulation. and this item was also forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. on tuesday the board heard the appeal at 480 pa trespasser this was for a negative deck mrargs. at the last hearing supervisors

cowen who's district contains this had questions related to parking. supervisor cowen reviewed the new standards and announced the standards at the last hearing and this answered her questions. she felt the concerns were also about sequa and with that the commissioner asked that the sequa be upheld. and then i wanted to share with you an introduction that was made by supervisor mar that pertains to his ordinance that would regulate formula retail. he introduced a extension that gives us 60 days. await that extension you would need to consider his ordnance by

early november now you will have until january. so it won't come before you. and there were no other pieces of legislation that really pertained to land use. that concludes my report >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> if i may when we had supervisor mars legislation in front of us we asked whether or not there couldn't be a attempt for all supervisors to join forces together to have a comprehensive reflection on the opinion. i want to pass that on. i think we would be better off having combines from whoever t is interested in the board together >> absolutely i would be interested to know that the supervisor met and having a little bit more time to do the

formula work and have that discussion with the public and commission prior to considering those ordinances. supervisor mars ordinance is from other version but you've not considered supervisor mars ordinance >> thank you. >> commissioner. >> isn't supervisor breed working on one. >> yes. you've considered supervisor breeds ordinance and one would change the fillmore street and twog others. so is we're going to make an attempt to consolidate some of this stuff >> yes. we are in the process of giving a consultant under contract to do a technical analysis of the issue and do some work that the city doesn't know about formula retail and

how it effects our neighborhood. that will feed into the policy work we'll suggest some policies and this commission can forward on the recommendation to the board of supervisors >> perhaps i should read some of the business times editorials. >> we'll read a lot of them. >> commissioner moore. >> on this subject matter is the consultants you're looking for an economic consultant or a visible architecture consultant one is size and a economic etc. and another one are what i have to use devastating effects of formula with respect to what a

small business is and their expressions. i hope the architecture visual part will be separate >> yes. we've discuss this issue with the commission in the past and their board hopes and ass prigsdz. we have limited funding at this point. some money from the department and at the commissioners request we pursueed a grant to expedite the whole plan. we went with the preselected and qualified list to make it shorter and that's a list you have consultants so we'll be working with them >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. corey for staff.

there was a board of appeals hearing last time but what may have been a conspiracy to make it easy on me but the 3 items were continued to future dates >> thank you, commissioners if there's nothing further we can move on to general public comment. at this point the public may address the jurisdiction of the stems but on agenda items will be addressed when their afford. you have up to 3 minutes. i have 2 speaker cards >> (calling names). >> good morning, commissioners. i'm jackie. that's j ak e e.

i'm here because i wanted to raise the issue of assembly meeting information. you do not have sensitivity and it's listed with other yeah, we have transit and parking and we have accommodations but not sensitivity. i am ass medic and have allergies. it's even with the mayor's office on disability they have it's a free environment so if you can it would be lovely to add that >> commissioners if i may and a at the very end of the first back of the first page, page 2 we address allergies. >> (inaudible).

>> thank you. >> ms. chapman. >> linda chapman knob hills neighbors. joe butler brought up social path behavior it's having no conscious for one thing but the way you interact with people is through empathy by through game playing. you know, ruining people is what is desired and ruining things. you know, if you lie it's not even because it's necessary a

social lie you love to lie so i will tell lies especially, when it could easily be disproven. you will do things against your interest because it involves winning and manipulation. it's not helpful when projects are approved when theirs this behavior. there's nothing that was truthfully other then the dimensions. this is unfortunately commissioner is not here. how do you know if the things you are given is complete fabrications. this is for the support for the project for the properties in the vicinity.

in 2010, the developer paid young people to go and see if they could get somebody to sign i want this church dpoornd or this building whatever so you'll see one of the big lots is the church and there is another lot which is the gables they've owned it centuries 1890 and the first name member motives there. it's one that showed a supportive demolition. you were told will the fiduciary. if you read the account where one of the officers said people were 140u9 liar liar and they were 140u9 liar liar at steve

who explained why people in neighborhoods associations don't take money and they come in here and say those people are fiduciarys for san francisco beautiful. they eventually applied for - >> is there any additional public comment? okay public comment is closed. next item, please >> commissioners that places you under your regular k4r57bd for amendments to the planning code and various other sections for reviewing loss of residential units. please understand that the approval is with modifications. good morning, councilmembers.

the proposed ordinance was introduced as substitute legislation by supervisor al loss and the origin proposal was considered by the planning commission. at that time the ordinance amended the evaluation of the loss of opts and it explained the non conforming used and the similar code sections related to the loss of unit. at that hearing this commission recommended and supervisor al loss agreed to separate the ordinances one that addressed the number one conforming units you've heard that before. the second draft ordinance that addressed the loss of dwelling

unit in the criteria. you recommended notifications the changes for the criteria used to talk about the demolished and residential utilities i unit to other outdoors. supervisor al loss has made all the modifications and the changes are reflected in the draft ordinance before you today. the reason that is back bus supervisor al loss wants to further modify the draft to prohibit the commission from approving the loss through demolish merging merge or 509d use of one or more units if there's a no fault eviction in the building. this is a change the language has not been incorporated into

the change but it's for your review. i'm not sure if supervisor avalos is here. the terms and controls and the criteria for the loss of demolish or other uses. each form is addressed separately with specific criteria and the proposed modification that supervisor avalos wants to make prohibits demolishes merges or other uses that have no evictions within the last 10 years. this changed was in a memo distributed at the last hearing.

the department overall is supportive of efforts to discourage no fault evictions. i want you to know we've not seen the specific language. one to reduce that timeframe from a 10 year prohibition to a 5 year prohibition that's to take a unit off the market for 5 years after a eviction. the second recommendation is to clarify the date that the prohibition would cabin. such that the prohibition would have to take place as we recommended in the case report at the time this ordinance becomes effective so wore not punishing landlords for

evictions that have already taken place. jeremy is here. our representations is two-fold one if the timeframe be reduced from 10 to 5 years and when it the triggered to be clarified >> before would you clarify a little division of no fault eviction. >> i can do the best. there are unit that are subject to rent control and there are unit that are subject to rent control and no fault evictions no fault evictions include evictions by which an owner takes a unit off the rental market in san francisco that's for 5 years minimum and if the unit is placed back on the

rental market within the 5 years the first tenant has the right to move back in with the first rental rate if on the market in 10 years the second 5 years they can be charged the full rate after the first 5 years >> commissioner i would add that jefferson a no fault there's rules for the no fault if the tenants at fault if they're not adhering to the rental contract with no violations p there are more restrictions on how they can be evicted. >> good afternoon legislative aid to john avalos. thank you for considering that. the commissioner is interested

if keeping the maintenance of the 10 year moratorium on the merges. we're interested in having that obey retroactive. we're open to a clear line where the date is easy for the planning staff to apply and you evaluate. one of the reasons for the 10 years is the displacement we're hearing more and more of a need for action. the 5 year eviction rate didn't seem to be slowing down and the merges is more warrant and will have more effect. that's with the rent control that says that apartments have been to offered back to tenants with a 10 year period.

i'll be glad to discuss it further >> okay. commissioner borden. >> so i want to clarify. the 5 year is that local implementation and is the board looking changing that. it seemed to be the tenants want to go back into the rental business but isn't the 5 year prelims a local ordnance >> the state law that specifics the 5 years. >> oh, sorry. thank you >> commissioner. >> i understand that not just the amendment is before us but the entire piece of legislation still has to be enacted so we'll look at the earlier part from an

earlier hearing. >> we discussed the sort of underlying july hearing but we have not taken action on that yet. >> commissioners. >> just a question on the state law change it was 10 years for an ellis act and it switched do i have any background on why that change was made at state level. >> i don't can the planning staff answer that question. >> i don't know that's a state law beyond the planning coincide. >> but it was true it was 10 years at one point and it's now 5 years. >> the city attorney mate know. >> i believe the ellis act has always contained a