every child who has a severe welcome to the san francisco planning commission meeting. december 12, 2013, >> >> if you care to speak, please state your name for the record.

>> commissioner fung is absent. commissioner wu, moore, commissioner sugaya. commissioners first on your calendar items proposed for continuance point 14.27 improvement and habitat continuance to january 9, 2014. >> >> zoning map amendments. those are all the continueances i have >> any public speakers on items proposed for continuance. >> this is on dolores and 17th?

>> no. we are on items for continuance. >> yeah. this was a notice. >> right now we are talk ing about the items. 333 dolores is on item 13. you can speak on that item when it's called up. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners antonini? >> move to continue the items. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioners to continue the matters and proposed. commissioner antonini, moore, sugaya, wu. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. places you in

consent calendar. it may be voted on by roll call vote. it shall be moved from the calendar and considered at a future hearing. item 3. 1650 mission street. item 4, 1423, lily street. request for condominium conversion. item 5, 1348, 1245th avenue. item 6, case 2014. 3171 through 3181 california street request for condominium conversion division. >> commissioners staff request

that item 6 be pulled off consent. >> okay let's hear at the first of the regular calendar. any public comment on items 3, 4, 5? seeing none public comment is closed >> move to approve items 3, 4, 5. [roll call vote taken], >> so moved. commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 6 will be considered under the regular calendar and places you under commission matters. >> commissioner moore? >> we are hearing a lot of in the discussion about affordability and housing i believe that is an issue. the

rest of the country is concerned about as well. i'm very happy to read in the paper that on tuesday. the san francisco unified school district acquired a parcel on 950 mission street so that the mayor's office of housing would be able to consider a hundred of 15 affordable units. that was a great idea. i couldn't be happier that we are starting to look very closely to what properties are under utilize. the second thing which is also addressing that very same issue is what's happened at the board of supervisors. i do not want to jump ahead of rogers who are report on it but i'm delighted that there were three items of

issues of affordability in san francisco under protection under the ellis act eviction. i couldn't be more pleased to hear that during this time of year. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, article in today's chronicle by the title of it is very good affordability must be tackled by the entire region. unfortunately while it is thought fully written. the solution he proposes in part are not really in my estimation a solution. he talks about other parts of the bay area becoming more dense and attracting some of the people that want to come to san francisco because we've asked them to come here and live in less space. to take public transit to locate businesses close to transit where people live and he's saying that other parts of the bay area should be doing those things too. i'm not

against that. that's no the the problem. we asked people to do this. they came here and it is successful and as a result prices are going up for housing and everything else because land values are increasing. so you can't have in both ways. unfortunately, the important thing the point he brings up is all counties in the bay area they have to consider equally and considerate least the five immediate bay area counties as an entity rather than singling out areas; particularly san francisco which is oddly considered in the united states almost built out for a few areas with some promise for additional housing and by nature it has to grow with density. there is a lot of space in ma rin and some areas

new york has the advantage of the five bureaus and 5 separate counties and they are collective rather than saying we have to solve the problems just in the bronx or manhattan. it would be all the same. i think he makes a good point. i think san francisco had done more than other regions have and i believe all the housing is going to be at least 20 percent more affordable. there is thousands of units going to be built there and i'm wondering maybe staff can give us a resort. i know that they do about what's happening in other counties as far as san francisco as far as their

inclusionary housing requirements and each city of course and what they are providing in terms of affordable units relative to what san francisco is doing. so, i think that would be an interesting thing to learn about. >> if there is nothing further commissioners, we can move to department matters. item 8. >> good afternoon, if my voice holds up, i just wanted to let you know that we are starting budget season. and the packet that you will receive today for next week you will be seeing a memo giving you an outline of a current status of this department's budget and revenues and expenditures and into mid-january we will start meeting with you in the start preservation commission on the work plan and upcoming budget items and we look forward to having that discussion with you

in the next few weeks. thank you. >> item 9, review of past weeks events at the board of supervisors, supervisor appeals. >> there is none for consideration. >> i'm here to give you your weekly report. on monday there were a few items at the land use committee of interest. they introduced two ordinance by avalos, the first demolition and the second in non-conforming units. they considered both of these files three times since july. the recommendations following to the board included following two items. a 10-year prohibition and those should apply with no fought evictions on or after october 24th. second you recommended the

ordinance consider move in evictions and no fault evictions different than ellis act evictions. avalos made several amendments and additional which were not finalized until tuesday. tuesday the board considered these. no. 1, the prohibition of an approving the loss of the units subject to no fault evictions apply to mergers and not demolitions. and no. 2 to be triggered by evictions on december 1st or later and no. 3 would exclude housing which is already protected under the residential hotel under the conversion code . and no. 4 in

the owner movement process that the mergers for those owner move in evictions would only last for 5 years rather than 10 years that the ellis act would be subjected to. for that these were approved unanimously at the board. also monday at the land use committee hearing, this will amend the code to allow the use to residential units and allow the four areas for accessible uses. the commission voted to approve this item on november 21st, and supervisor chiu mentioned that he's interested in sponsoring an ordinance. at the hearing the department expressed support for such an idea that would allow the department to

evaluate whether the impact of the waiver are significant or not on our budget. so far this year the department has received 21 food operation referrals for a total amount of $2700. should this number of applications be similar, we believe the impact to our budget will be minimal. that's an ordinance that you will see in the future that will wave that fee for a year. after a full discussion, a recommendation of approval and did pass the full board on tuesday's reading. that would be the first reading. and the third ordinance that relates to the ellis act eviction was heard on tuesday. it would replace an ellis act emergency program. you approved it on november 21st, this would give priority for housing projects to those individuals who

received an ellis act eviction. the board did incorporate the recommendations of this commission which was to include a requirement for a hearing at the board 3 years after mremgsz of this ordinance so the board could hear about demographic income levels of beneficiariesary in this preference. in addition the preference to disabled units for 5 years rather than the other general preference for those who are not disabled but live there for at least 10 years. with that amendment, this ordinance was passed. the last item at the full board were interim controls for certain building permits of this area of market street and south of market. this resolution would require for the 12-month period, that certain buildings that have commercial uses would be required to do a 15-day posting

requirement describing the nature of the work that was expected and noticing the public that we believe that there are no residential units affected by this work. there would be a hotline established where if someone did believe the residents would be impacted, they would do enforcement and investigation. so this item was an interim control, as such it was not under the particular commission, however the director did hear the report. it will be sent to the mayor likely for approval tomorrow. there are few new introductions this week from the board i would like to share. the first is an ordinance introduced by the mayor that would create emergency shelter sud. the special use district would allow for emergency shelter and meals for the needy. supervisors, wiener, kim,

ferrel and avalos introduced a hearing request directly through at & t stadium at about the sidewall cabinets and the outreach for any suggested improvements. that concludes my report unless there is any questions. >> thank you. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. miss rogers, clarification on the merger legislation. it seems that you said if there would be an ellis action in 10 years then a merger wouldn't be allowed, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> then there is a second part, an owner move in where a tenant might be evicted to allow the owner to move in and i don't know what the 5-year period

refers to in that instance. >> you know, that's a good question, i'm going to need to check in with the staff and get a little bit of clarification on that point. >> presumably the tenant is still there and they want to make the space larger within the building. >> i believe that is the case for those owner move in evictions, this would prevent the merger of those 2 units. so that's the way i understand it. >> maybe it means you can evict the tenant for move in, but then there would be a 5-year wait to be able to merge units after the fact. >> yes. i believe that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon

commissioners. corey tiegs. the board of appeals met last night for the appeal for the building for 1050 valencia street which is at the corner of valencia and hill street. this is a 5 story, 55-foot tall proposal with 12 dwelling units and ground floor retail space. just to remind you a little bit of the history. this project was a co-compliant project that did not require any entitlements from the planning commission. however discretionary review was requested by the neighboring property owner at the marsh theatre and by the liberty hill neighborhood association. the planning commission heard that dr in 2012 and on september 6, 2012, took dr and approved the project with no modifications

to the project itself, but adding some conditions regarding refinement of the bay windows and establishing a community liaison, additional noise control feeters and limited construction hours attend -- encouraged the project sponsor to work with sound issues anden encouraged the sponsor to work with staff and not reduce the number of dwelling units in the proposal. the mitigated negative declaration for the project was also an appealed to both the planning commission and board of supervisors. planning commission commission upheld on november 30,th, and november 5th of this year. the hearing last night was quite long. as you can imagine there was quite

a bit of public comment. in the end the board did vote unanimously to adopt the motion to grant all of the appeals and approve the permit with conditions. those conditions were to remove the entire top floor of the project, also to upgrade the party wall with the marsh to 50 dba value for sound rating, the marsh had also worked with the project sponsor to jointly agree on other certain conditions. those conditions included beyond the community liaison having a more construction related person on-site to contact and deal with construction issues and to allow the marsh to request up

to 20 times per year with advanced notice of specific times and shows of events where they would like no construction happening or cause specific noise and not allow trucks to be idling for more than five 5 minutes on the street unless they are performing a specific function like pouring concrete and a similar requirement informing any potential buyer of a unit in this development that they would be moving next to a theatre that has performances and creates certain amount of noise. and then there were several other conditions proposed by the marsh that the project had not agreed to on two conditions is was to limit the construction hours even further. i can detail that if you like. also to require a notice of special

restrictions be recorded basically to codify all of these conditions. and then finally the project was actually then continued to january 15th, so that detail findings could be drafted because there was a lot here to digest. parties involved will have an opportunity to rebut the findings. they are also invited to submit their own draft findings. the matter is not completely finalized at this point but they did take the motion to grant the appeals and take those actions last night and the next board hearing for this project is january 15th, to discuss the adoption of findings. available for questions which i assume you may have. >> commissioner borden? >> i would be eager because i understand the procedure is a quasi judicial body. maybe you

can present the findings because i'm having a hard time understand. that seems like a pretty drastic. this project has been to the board of supervisors and to us. it seems like a very drastic result. something beyond anything that is ever discussed or considered hearing. i don't understand how that process works where they can be so different than what was contemplated. >> i'm happy once the findings are adopted. i'm happy to bring the details of the findings. i can either present that or send you a report with the directors report. >> what is the appellant process for the project sponsor. say if they are not happy, what happens to the board of appeals? what's next? is there a rehearing. >> they can request a rehearing with in 10 dachlts you -- day, you have to show that

there was information represented or not represented or that was not made available relevant to the case or on going or will be manifest injustice and without one of those two, a rehearing request shouldn't be granted. beyond that, once this is final then the only appeal option for the developer would be to sue. >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further we can move on to general public comment. members may address the commission except agenda an items. your opportunity to address the commission will be addressed when the items are addressed in the meeting. you have up to 3

minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? >> linda chapman from knob hill. i don't know whether you saw the article in the chronicle in the pink section called the love ghetto. i hope you will. it is the way i remember that neighborhood. it was a neighborhood where four 4 generations of my family lived around. we grew up in district 7. during the 60s my sister moved back to the heda street. i used to walk to the panhandle and see my grandmother and sister until 67. they are i went away and described by

charles. when i came back it was wrecked. i compared this situation to what's happened on knob hill since. although in that case it had nothing to do with public officials or anybody intend it. it just happened because of the dissent of all the people here. the way we have the inebriated use and the party buses on knob hill. of course i planned to live there and i moved to my grandmother's building for a while. it was around the corner where people killed roommates and dumped them on the sidewalk. i walk through it everyday on the sidewalk. so i moved to knob hill. we that had most wonderful commercial district. it was glorious. i

used to congratulate myself on living there and it's what people loved and they protect it. when we were under the threat of all kinds of development trying to take our rental property in particular, everything who volunteered, she invited me to do her envelopes, she did them special. we had tea and did envelopes. and -- ray. who was also a volunteer. unlike now where we have people who claim they are neighborhood leaders and neighborhood groups and they won't allow people. even people like henry pen whom you met. you can see the kind of professional that he's going to be and so mpna tells him he can't come in. you don't belong

here. although he lives upstairs from the building where they have their meetings, for example, or people from the disability action who are told you don't belong her hr. -- it's just sad. >> is there any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, this places you under regular calendar. let me read it into this record. case no. 20, -- 2131 >> good afternoon. the item before you is for a question to convert a 3 story garage into a

condominium. no alterations for the building are proposed. it contains a few errors. i have the updated information. the current rental history is as follows: mark run dal and michelle became owners. for unit 175, the unit was on the market and vacant from april to may, 2013, prior to april 4th, occupants josh green and robert and john rented the unit from july 20, 2011, to march, 2013. for unit 3179, occupant anneal

became october. in order for the project to proceed, the project requires planning commission approval under section 1332 and 1331 to allow the condominium conversion. i'm ethiopia answer any questions. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> i'm the attorney representing the owner of this. there are just typographical errors. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini? >> it appears this doesn't change anything other than the fact that it was type graphically done. the conditions met