>> good morning to the san francisco planning commission regular month to month thursday, december 19, 2013. the commission doesn't allow any disruptions and when speak before the commission if you care to do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll >> president fong. commissioner wu. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. and commissioner sugaya >> commissioners first on your calendars are items proposed for

continuance. for 410 townsend street as proposed for continuance january 16, 2014. for the next two cases at the 1433 bush street request for authorization and surveillance are proposed for indefinite. under your regular calendar item 17 for case requests for planning code contemplate is requested to continue this matter until january 16, 2014. i have one speaker card related to 17, however, i'm not sure it's regarding the continuance >> so let me call the name. richard >> and sir, your comments at

this time are limited only to the matter of continuance. >> thank you. i have brought written comments from a letter we consisted electronically i'm with the law firm and thank you president fong. i'm here representing the united service west and their 5 thousand workers and their 40 thousand members throughout the state of san francisco. we very much appreciate the stuns we think this ordinance has been rice in a significant way it can have dramatic impacts on downtown so far. it was proposed for a one off to the apple store but now 38 buildings around reunion square

including the is it fair to say distract hotel and macy's store the ordinance as property would allow any of those buildings to be destroyed and raised to the ground >> sir i'd like to remind you those comments are restricted to the calendar. >> we think this is a significant change to the ordinance that certainly warrants the continuance so the matter can be continued and the environmental review determined of such a broad recreational ordinance. >> any member of the public wish to speak on this item on items proposed. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i had a question about item number 2a and b it looks like an indefinite

continuance is there a reason there's no date on that? >> commissioners david lindsey from the department staff. the projection sponsor is continuing to work with staff and a neighbor group from polk strot street on this. with the holidays coming up we weren't able to come down with a definite date we've left it open when we come upon a date >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> for the record the applicant sent a letter to the entire commission regarding - he's did you deliberating working on the project that were that xhifrmdz

what you're saying the letter hadn't aspired. >> commissioner borden. >> i have a question is the continuance being requested by the public? >> actually, the department is requesting the continuance a 19 plus page letter we received late and haven't had a chance to look at it. january 16th is within our timeframe to look at those >> okay. great. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. for the january hearing i'd like a lot more information including where the addresses. i know there's there's a map but the map didn't have any addresses the nature of the buildings, you know, the physical description and some pictures >> commissioner antonini. >> i was going to go ahead and

move to continue items 1, 2a and b-1 to the date listed january 16th and to the indefinite continuance and january 16th. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> okay. so there's a motion and second and a commissioners there's a motion and second to continue all items on that commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. >> can we continue a variance b? >> it will be renoticed recalls. >> okay. i. >> commissioner wu president fong. so moved, commissioners, that

motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. commissioners that and places you under your consent calendar they maybe acted upon a single roll call and no discussion unless the public or staff should request and it will be reformed from the consent calendar and item 3 case at the enterprise street request request for authorization and the next one at the 21 through 25 condominium subdivision and the next case at the 2715 through 19 be sacramento street request for condominium conversion and the next at the 3104 request for continual use

authorization the next one at the 2200 market street and the next case at 850 brannan street known as 88 street there are no speaker cards. is there any public comment on those items on the consent calendar. okay be smooenz >> commissioner borden. commissioner antonini. commissioner sugaya >> and president fong. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and mrs. you under commission matters of the draft minutes for september 5, 2013.

>> any public comment on this item? on draft minutes or proposed draft minutes so moved, commissioners. >> i'll move to approve the minutes. on that motion commissions to adapt the draft minutes commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner wu. and president fong >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to gore and places you under the comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. the first item is i am scheduled to increase go a surgical procure on the 16 and won't be in attendance and there's a chance i may not be

here on the 23rd and it's hard to change the scheduling of that procu procure so to gossiping give you accurate notice for the 23rd and possibly the 16. open another item i'd like to recognize that tomorrow is my fabricates a one hundred that birthday and he served as a commissioner in pleasant town and they did a good job out there if you've had the opportunity to velocity that town. they were one of the first few opportunity towns to keep their main street and enduring takes place out in the main street and it's the site of a lot of

parades and another thing they did acquit well, there me made some good improvements over the years and eliminated some buildings that were built in the 50s not have the best quality and replaced them with buildings that are in context with the more historic building be that masonry arrowwood framed. for those who are afraid of false history i think you should tack a ride out there and i can tell which the in your are but it gives it a nice appearances and it's something people like and certainly looks brnt having some modern buildings into the main street. i wanted to recognize my fathoms transition and recognize his

birthday he passed away 9 years ago but set a good example to me in service to his community >> commissioner sugaya. >> unless i missed it there was an article in the nuptial about the waterfront if we could get a status report it was in the paper it was something about assessment for water transportation all popping up. >> a the thing that peter albert was doing. >> did we hear that. >> yeah. if there's any you kind of update. >> okay. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks yesterday the mayor issued a mayoral drive about the direction of affordable housing. i think at some point the staff

will tell us how that will be implemented within the planning department >> commissioner moore. >> another bright light we all get an e-mail and this is i'm not sure i'm pronouncing this credible but opening up trains bay housing and we have especially building under the example of what we want to do. you should click through the pictures and i was happy to get that news this morning >> commissioners if there's nothing further we can powerful

on to item 11 planning commission rules and regulations. commissioners you first heard this 20 two weeks ago on december 5th with proposed amendments distributed to you at that time. you reviewed those and provided our comments back to me. i've tried to incorporate those into the proposed amendments that were forwarded to you last week. i want to make note those rules and regulations as they are before you and your consideration for adaptation today are challenged. there's a specific citing of earlier 5 of your current rules and regulations. i'd like to read the champs that the language of the amendments were not provided to the public 10 days in

advance. article 5 of your current rules and regulations states those rules and regulations maybe amended following a public hearing providing that the amendment has been calendared for at least 10 days. those proposed amendments were noticed in the december 5th calendar two weeks in advance ever this hearing. it's in my opinion those are appropriately before you and you have the right to adapt them if you wish to. the city attorney is here i've discussed it with her and she's available for questions. i want to get it out of the way >> thank you. any other presentation or from staff about this >> i want to get that out of the way.

if you choose this is not properly before you or continue the matter we, do that >> let's up that up for comment first opening it up for public comment first. >> is this on. >> (inaudible). >> what item were you referring to. >> for item 6. >> 2013 (inaudible). >> unfortunately, i didn't receive the card until after that matter was considered you would call public - >> (inaudible). >> the commission president requested if there was any public comment on the record. >> so i ask at every item if

there's public comment and we did on those as well as the continuance calendar. >> you still have the opportunity to submit our comment. >> we're discussing rules and regulations the next one is where you can express our opinion. >> calling for comment on rules and regulations. >> susan inheriting take care the person who submitted the letter. it's snultd to the public that no one goes back and watches the hearings where the planning commission said repeating there would be a special hearing a hearing starting in 2008, and 2011 at the last adoption on appendix e peculiar adaptation. to my knowledge it's never

occurred. it is then said at public and you can ask anyone who goes on the sfgovtv and watches the meetings that those hearings were on the agenda those representations were made. if commissioners don't have the time staff should. there has been no substantive hearing on the way you do deal with one week and two week hearings and how you tell public is able or not able to get documents provided to the commission. that is a enthusiast of what i've been trying to deal with since 2008. you by your rules and your practices have shrunk the amount of hearings and the availability of the public to be informed of the hearings because the staff

and are developers report are available to the public in time they can comment on. this means exception in downtown and expectations in the other area plans. expectation to the planning code are. you have a routine approval 6 days after the records are available to the public. i also question whether you are properly getting the public information when you have a 7 day rule that you effectively use as a 7 day rule to the commission. the items are not public until they're posted by the commission secretaries office. in particular those rules were not available. your minutes of the month to month two weeks ago their rather

snument. you look at those minutes and you look at the discussion on the rules two weeks ago. there is not one mention of any comment by any commissioner there is a brief list of people who exempted. comments come in a writing from the public and commission should be part of the staff report. it should have been staff report for to today. how are you describing information on amendments to the rules and questions that are raised when you don't provide them on the agenda. they're not on the agenda. the only thing is last friday at the 1 o'clock i received the amendments. its not enough to talk to individual commissioners that you're getting into danger water

and you don't have your comments many the record two weeks ago. thank you >> linda chapman. i would have appreciate the chance to read what's before you. it was evenly vertebral from the computer using the sftv computer they were unable to print it out. i wrote to the secretary and he, he sent me strange format instructions sometimes you can print it in word but okay same thing this time. and you know, i did write the

commission secretary who sent me a copy that was nice i was able to read it no one can read this one. substantive comments i made a few last time you don't understand how difficult it is for people out there for not having great communications anyway to communicate this. if commissioner moore had though the mention we could send things to the secretary god that was great but most people don't know this if they don't send it to the commission secretary it won't go into the record. but, of course, as you know if

they don't get them 8 days in advance they won't get it published so, now we're hearing in the commission secretary is not on hear like kevin annoy or one of the planners it won't go into the record. this is about notification 2 weeks and sue hester thaut thought larkin was a difficult hearing and should have been notices. we got noticed on saturday we result was no lawyer here and with over riding comment the developer said oh, there's a lot of these information. it would have helped us if we had seen that report and known

what it was about. i would have other comments if i had seen this i made a few last time, you know. i hope to see this and it can be discussed if; however, committee and maybe after we've seen it we can comment further >> we're still talking about the rules and regulations. i'll be sure to call you up >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm paul. i've two separate comments. one is having heard our response for more time to notice on certain projects like 311 are noticed. i do want to state i support sue hester's positions on the larger number of supplemental issues

that perhaps don't get appropriate notice of one week. unlike the commissioners who are to read the public is destroying to submit comments that factor into our decision and by restricting us to 3 minutes that i think does potentially a service because we don't have time to submit a more comprehensive set of thoughts. on the second topic i recall on the last hearing commissioner moore suggested she would submit comments to the commissioners this was a matter of public record. i want to thank the secretary for sending those to me but it would have been helpful if documents that are that

significant from particular on the submittal documents that support the hearings if those were parrot of the records the public could see and understand. of them. i think commissioner moore: suggestions are significant and merit some attention. i noted there's a request for 3-d reverend it's entirely unclear is that a requirement on the project sponsor or the dr folks if its on both why is the requester has accurate information to do accurate collaborations and modeling to provide inaccurate information. i'm not an expert but i have a sense of fear of data that's

being use i think it's interesting before this is approved >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? on rules and regulations? soak seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya oh, no, no, no. >> it's not about rules per say but about the use of the word 10 days is it you were interpreter or interpreted to mean calendar or working days in article 5. >> i interpret those to be calendar days. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i like to say i would have hoped that the rules as their september to us today and if they indeed annoyance the

different commissioners comments for the sake of this discussion would have been identified. it's unclear what the basis is for the rules. i've not received any comments from my fellow commissioners that recycle 0 r talk about the procedural issues with the underlying submissions. i've not gotten a single comment or if their rejected by whom. since i've start to talking about the lack of clarity not specific targeted issues for anyone or the department or anyone in the department almost seven years ago i didn't know

the drawings were submitted. i've said it over and over again when are we going to get more cliefrt because drawings submittals that are unclear and circle and often result in having to send cases basing back because we do understand them made me think we need to intensity some clear applications to submit those in a consistent way. as the 7 year sitting here do we have for the first time from the secretary see that that we indeed have a say open appendix a. this was not given to us before so thank you for doing that. i ask the department and the director knows how can we be more clear. we're here to be basically working with you to deliver

something that you spend a lot of time deliberating with with a large staff hours and hours but we get information that we can't properly support you it then gets sent back. i went through simply i or like a good student through the 9 places in the departments reducing instructions to the applicant and most succinctly under the plans guidelines and what i did because we have the add function in our word document i made red boxes to consistentlyly insert that the plans submittal guidelines should be the common reference for all 59 places. you have liquor one