the week before the meeting. >> commissioner hillis. >> i would agree with that plan, in cases where people comment that this is the first i see of this case and didn't meet the developers, and commission will continue with that item so that the developer can meet with the neighborhood. but the issue of complicated or volumous or what we call it, when did that come into the rule? is that a long-standing item or new? i get the fact that that's fairly new, and some say they are complicated and sometimes i agree and sometimes i don't. could there be more meat in the rules about what is complicated or not. size. you know, scope.

i wasn't on the commission either when we had this discussion. no, i was here when talked about the term volumous, but not what is a complicated case. i get that it's subjective but there could be thresholds. but it's interesting to get from the public if they have suggestions. i know that mrs. hester brought it up, and good for her to spell out what she believes what is a complicated case but agree it's subjective. >> commissioner saugaya. >> i think that the examples are office allocation that could be requiring more notification or advance work. and for example it could be tied

to a specific planning, development related something like that. rather than doing a general thing that we continue to have. there may be things that she is suggesting back to actions taken or planning decisions or policies or something like that. i don't know. that would take a lot more work. but just to reiterate, in terms of people knowing about projects as there will probably be a dr coming before the commission on something that we worked on. but just as an example in this case, it's a small, it was a demolition of a vacant and abandoned building that hadn't been in use for a long time. that was a dr anyway. because we are going to demolish -- not me, but the developer is going to demolish the building. and in its place is a code

compliant building that will add three units. and there have been numerous notifications surrounding that, that had to be sent out within a surrounding area. i don't know what the distances are, 300 feet? 500 feet? that have to be mailed as a specific process to do that. the owner had to have a neighborhood meeting or sent out notices for a meeting. and i think that happened twice in this case. but it could be that the distances are such that other people are not going to know. and whether people themselves that are in that distance and have even met with the property owner notify a neighborhood group or not. we don't know that. >> notifications do include

neighborhood organizations on file with the planning department. in this case i think the commission knows nothing about this project but the surrounding neighborhood does. >> commissioner moore. >> the discussion about this has been as long as the last seven years i have been sitting here. and i fully emphasize with the frustration and the request for more time, for example, i have a call of cases two or three weeks ahead of time. i cannot put my arms around all aspects. such as transbay, the list goes on. and in the end there might be some qualifier why these projects do indeed require more advance notice or separating approval of an eir with the project approval. because too many issues

happening at once and too impossible to understand them all. but that would be a discussion by commission on a case by case could have with the president. because ultimately the president and vice president meet with staff on monday to set the final schedule for the following week, thursday. and sometimes we are confronted with something that i agree with the public, i just can't get it. and we would leave that discussion more open to indeed consult with ourselves and among ourselves, hard to do that. because we rarely if ever take on the calendar is not properly balanced or the material is too much relative to what we are capable of doing with this. >> commissioner hillis. >> for the question of dr's and the sponsor teamed. does that mean that those people

don't testify, it seems like we have had them testify. that's the purpose to include a team presentation. and like the dr requester's attorney could speak after that on public comment. or project sponsors or an architect wouldn't get three minutes. and that's the same under standard cases. >> okay, that's what the board of appeals but doesn't seem like here. >> the board of appeals is more strict. >> yeah, it makes sense the architect and the family, and it's odd to extend their time. >> correct. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioners if nothing further, thank you very much for your thoughtful input and suggestions. i will try to assemble all of

those in a packet and re-calendar this. item 8, director's announcements. >> yes, a couple of announcements i want to reiterate of the governor's award and to recognize moses corrette and tim frye. the richmond plant was designed by a detroit based firm that i worked for two years in my first two years out of architecture school. and nice to see that building in that fashion. we had an open house for the

open space element for the general plan and the green plan. we had a nice turn-out to announce the final draft. those are perhaps today or next week. we anticipate both of those projects next year for your consideration. we are excited about both of those. it's a long time coming and we are working with the park and recreation draft and we believe is in great shape. and the green's connection plan that implements an important set of policies. so we are excited about those moving forward. and thirdly, i wanted to spend a couple of minutes on the legislation that is mentioned senate bill 743, that changes some of our ceqa rules and methodologie methodologies. in addition, the most substantive change was that the level of service will be

replaced with a different metric to assess traffic impacts. the timing of when that goes in effect is still relatively uncertain. it will not go into effect until there are rules at that level, we think that won't happen until 2015. we still have a long time but sets the stage for us to replace the level of service. that we have wanted to do for a long time. and it changes our thinking about the transportation sustanability program that we have been working on to replace the level of service. but changes how we have to do that and what considerations we might make. but there are other changes in the bill, and one is projects in

the transit priority area and which is most of san francisco. in those cases two areas will not be considered significant impacts anymore. one is aesthetics and one is parking. now it's with respect to aesthetics we are still working on our own procedures that these are included in the document. what it does is change and remo remove aesthetics as impact towards ceqa. and the same for parking as you may remember there is back and forth cases about parking in the recent years. this resolved that issue removing parking as impact under ceqa and that goes forward immediately. those are changes that the governor and legislature passed this last year. and we will keep you up to date

on the level of service. that's an important part of analysis. it's the single most timely aspect in ceqa reviews. and change in looking at traffic in a more reasonable way in the future. that concludes my report unless there are questions, thank you. >> thank you. commissioners. item 9, review -- >> sorry, commissioner moore. >> could you elaborate on one particular aspect of impacts not on cultural and historical resources. that is one sentence, can you pick up on that? >> i believe that is referring that we still have to consider impacts on cultural and historical resources otherwise it's not considered. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> in regards to your comments, i understand that significant impact no longer will include

aesthetics or parking. but traffic in general even though not using los, it's significant impact but not parking as it relates. because all of our ceqa hearings center on the traffic in a given area as a result of a project. >> that's right, parking in and of itself is not impact but congestion through another metric is considered. parking and traffic congestion. >> yes, but parking could be discussed with congestion. >> perhaps but on-parking per se will not be considered. >> commissioners if nothing further, move on to item 9, review of past week's events, no

board of appeals hearings. >> good afternoon, here to share a couple of items from the historic preservation commission hearing. the architecture review committee met to review the apple store on union square. they reviewed the team on the plaza and the fountain. in overall design. however the committee raised concerns about the overall design compatibility of the store in the preservation district. specifically around the transparency along stockton street and the glass wall on post street. the department will continue to work with the design team and arc members, and the hope is that we can bring something before the commissions early next year.

the port authority gave a short development presentation to the full commission. the informational presentation surrounded the rehabilitation and reuse of 10 historic buildings that make up the core on pier 70. the commission responded favorably to the context proposed for the project. and asked the port to come back early next year to provide more detailed information and drawings on how they propose to approach each building. and the htc recommended approval to the board of supervisors for eight contracts. seven of those contracts are coming from the newly designated park-land district and the burr house. the board of supervisors will hear those items at a future hearing. and then finally the htc

approved permits for the san francisco furniture building and the historic district. and the htc granted appropriateness for the square and land-mark district. i am happy to give you details of those approvals if you like them. that concludes my comments today. >> thank you, any questions? comments? >> commissioners that will place you under general public comment, not to exceed 10 minutes at this time. the public can address the items except agenda items, with respect to the agenda items you will be afforded during that time. >> i have one speaker card, linda chapman.

>> i want to return to the subject of private agreements. because they have had such a te term -- terrible impact on our neighborhood. i have spoke with steve taylor, who is representing nonprofit developments and president of coalition of san francisco neighborhoods and on the board of spur, and many other things. he confirmed with his analysis in detail why the decisions you made on 1601 lamorena were illegal and why the decision was unethic unethical. and if a fiduciary does exist and doesn't appear there is one at this time. their role is unethical if they were cutting checks for the neighborhood association to decide what to do.

i mean i am just really floored at what happened. because you had been advised before and i certainly don't take you as being uncaring or stupid people. but you were advised before that private agreements cannot be enforced by the city and yet the condition was made on the private agreement, 60,000 is not enough and make it 100,000 and vote on it. and ceqa doesn't make anything like that overriding situation. obviously it's difficult for you to know when you are being confronted by lies, by lies from the person who says he is representing the methodist. b by lies from the neighborhood group mo-- who says they are representing the committee. you know what the planning code

says, c 03 is about the particular use and the site as proposed period. and ceqa requires an individualized analysis of the impact of the particular historic impact of the historic building and the alternatives on that. not about what money can be given to someone else. you were told it's already -- all right, because there are two fiduciaries, and who are they. all year long we heard that san francisco beautiful that rejected the application was the fiduciary. and we heard that before they applied. and the plan of fluff what they would do regarding trees. now in the end someone contacted a manager, the executive

director knew nothing about it and three weeks telling me they didn't have a contact. and it wasn't a plan, it was like a suggestion, oh, well. >> you have a report -- sue hester, you have a report coming to you next week on area plans. please require information to be produced on eastern neighborhoods has multiple neighborhoods in it. how many projects have been approved at what address. how much money has come in for transportation. how much money has come in for affordable housing. how much money has come in for improvements in the area.

people at the planning department can just punch buttons and bring these up. they are available because you have structured information flow. no one else has them. we don't have any idea of what projects are coming through in market octavia and mission, and eastern soma and western soma. what projects have paid how much money and are going to pay how much money. some of it is in the future for transit. we have undone transit improvements up the wazzoo. and we have get additional bus routes.

we have pardon me crappy transit in the areas that the department has expanded affordable housing from office. and one of the places was just reported a couple of minutes ago. was the twitter headquarters and merchandise mart, 1.2 million square feet of office was created by fiat. bit by the board of apepeals. they didn't pay one penny for housing. did not pay one penny for transit. it used to be a furniture warehouse display. when we don't know what money is coming in, what projects are coming through, we don't have an understanding what you are doing with the area plans.

i am on the verge of going to oppose every single area plan. because they got information to the public, they got public participation and they got ear's. i am not happy doing that but i have seen it bit by bit. downtown. eastern neighborhood. market octavia. [bell] >> anything additional general public comment? public comment is closed. >> commissioners that will place under your regular calendar for item 10, conminnium conversion subdivision presentedation. >> good afternoon, president fong, and members of the commission. the item before you is an informational presentation to discuss recent changes to the subject code relate said to c d

condomini condominiums, and required to hold a public hearing containing five to six units where at least one unit is residential and consistent with the general plan. projects less than five units are reviewed administratively. and i introduce you to bruce the department of public works and along with a few members of his staff. >> thanks, christine, bruce storis, city and county surveyor. and some of my staff. i don't suspect i will get through this without having to call on them. i understand that the commission probably has a lot of questions on this new ecp legislation.

and i would like you to interrupt and ask questions when they come to you. or if you have anything burning, feel free to shout it out or raise your hand, however you proceed. this legislation went in effect july 29 of this year. and it effectively ended the condo lottery for 10 years. i think there was six buildings that are the most senior participants that are not subject to legislation. they will convert, they have the ability to apply january 1, 2014. basically the legislation allows tendency in common, tic's to pay a fee, a per unit fee, $20,000 is the base fee. and depending on how long they participated in the lottery,

reduce that fee by a certain percentage. just a little bit of background, for subdivisions there is parcel maps and final maps. a parcel map is four units or less and final maps are five units or more. what you see is final maps. the reason for the -- i think there is 31 five and six-unit conversions you will be seeing that already applied to us. we are unclear as to why there is this rush, other than the interest in getting out of their tic's and refinancing and getting a lower interest rate. i think the tic's by nature are more volatile and have the more units they are more volatile. the five and six-unit buildings

want to get out as soon as possible. this is basically broken down into seven groups. the first group, the first two years the first two groups have to have participated in the condominium lottery. the first group has to have five years owner occupancy, that had to start on april. this goes through -- i don't have the exact date, i think it's april 15, 2014, the next group has the same requirement but a three-year owner occupancy requirement. after that it's basically six year owner occupancy. and depending on when your owner occupancy started it advances up

until april 15, of 2019. why don't you ask whatever questions you have. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i have quite a few. in regards to that, this legislation was originally introduced and i thought it ended up that anyone who was in the group could immediately pay the fee and go ahead and break up their tic and be converted to condominium status. but this sounds like it's filtered in over a period of time. and for some of these they have to qualify for quite a period of time before they can step up and dissolve the tic and convert to individual condos. >> that's correct. >> i assume that must be negotiated because that's not how i thought it would be when first introduced. >> i think i will refer come

comments on legislation. we didn't get a copy but right before it was approved. here's a copy of it, i tried to save some trees if you want to look at that at your leisure. there are requirements and the most senior participants can opt out first. >> yeah, how long you have owned your unit. the longer you are in the tic. >> in the first two years the discount is based upon lottery participation. >> oh, thank you. >> and just a follow up question in the future you mentioned a 10-year moratorium on any new tic's getting in lottery process

for future conversion. but there is no differentiation of a single owner unit that wants to convert in condominiums as opposed to a situation or two or three owners in a situation that there may be owner occupiers in a six-unit building that i understand won't be allowed in future. but is there any differentiation between fewer owners and the number of renters in any units? >> differentiation in the application? >> yeah. i guess the moratorium applies to everybody. >> the moratorium applies to everyone. >> even renters and occupier in all the units. >> yes. >> commissioner borden. >> maybe you can step back, right now we have seen in the last several months a number of

tic condo conversions. and none of those were result of the legislation, those were pre-existing lottery projects? >> as far as i know everything you are seeing now, we call it e ecp, expedite conversion. >> so it's a result, when was this effect? >> july 29. >> there was previous conversion what was paid before this legislation went in effect? >> previously it was subject to the lottery. >> so no fees? >> there are conversion fees. >> so this fee is on top of the existing conversion fee and that goes to affordable housing. >> correct. >> and to the mayor's housing? >> yes, correct. these are buildings grandfathered in? >> they were the senior