we hope you'll agenda did i see the rose on this important document. i'm turning in the documents that's clear on protecting our park >> any public comment on this item? that is not on our agenda. seeing none, public comment is clos closed. >> all right. commissioners that will place you under director announcements item one. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim fry the director reports. it was in our report it talks about the development impact fees. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them or follow-up with director ram at a future hearing

>> commissioners any questions. seeing none, we'll move on >> commissioners review the planning commission and announcements. good afternoon, tim fry again welcome back and happy holidays. i have a few comments first item i passed out a memo from preservation planner regarding washington street this is the sam restaurants located in chinatown. the commission wanted more information. action occurred there without a permit. the enforcement planners found that the previous tenant had vacated the site and there had been a substantial you amount of work without permit. a notice the violation was filed

and a building application has been submitted to convert the ground floor to retail and that application is under review by our department and we'll keep the posted on the isaac outcome of our review. there are senile changes on the exterior of the building but the property owners will submit those but we have not received them yet. if you have any questions about the memo or the site if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and i have my colleague who can answer your questions. just a couple other items one of the proposed landmark for marcus book store was considered at the january phil land use committee

and it was voted to support that designation. we believe that will be heard by the full board on january 28th. right before the end of the year 10 contracts were unanimously approved as you recall the commission reviewed those contract in october and december of last year. the board of supervisors budget and finance committee had a special hearing on the 16 to talk about those contracts and the 10 contact were heard and unanimously approved. the committee will submit the report on february 5th once reviewed by the puc? a required document by our certified local

government. once you've reviewed that document it had been forwarded in compliance with the agreement. finally, i wanted to mention to you this knowledge the budget and finance committee will consider a resolution to sell 1.1 million square feet from the war memorial complex. this was continued from the january 8th hearing pending the questions regarding the amount of or how the calculation was determined for the amount of t dr to sell. the process of the authorization and the role of the planning department in that process. over the last week it appears that most of the questions have been addressed and i'll keep you posted on the outcome of that this afternoon. this is just to authors the city

to begin the process does not approve the sale of the t d railroad the city has to still file a permit to begin that process. and that concludes my comments >> commissioners, any questions or comments? >> commissioners that places you under election of officers. commissioners. commissioner johns. >> well, i'd lying 80 like to move we elect reenact the currency officers commissioner wolfram to be department for another term. >> second. >> we it's been moved and seconded. >> call the roll arrest commissioners on that motion to

reelect 9 currency offenses. >> commissioner hyland. commissioner johnck. commissioner johns and a commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and sxhigs you president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. knickers we can move on to the appointment of the architecture review committee members >> our 3 current members outside of that do our other commissioners anyone wish to be on that committee. i feel our 3 currency ones you're willing to serve another year >> yes. >> can we consider that an appointment. >> it's entirely up to you. >> so commissioner hyland and a commissioner pearlman will continue on and i'll be did

substitute. >> commissioners then we can move on to item 5 historic preservation schedule. commissioners our rules and regulations do stipulate you mediating meet on the first and third there's a schedule in your packet for school shuns >> july 2nd if i could get consensus don't anybody know at this point i'm going to be out of town. would you like me to hold it >> the fourth is a friday so let's how old it. >> any other - >> how old it you mean hold the meeting or the issue. >> hold the meeting. keep it on calendar. exactly >> workload pending.

>> making sure - >> commissioners, any questions or comments? on any dates you see off the bat. >> i was going to say if you don't cancel it today, you can keep everybody or everything on calendar. >> so you would we have consensus on the calendar we'll move on. >> just by voice vote can we adapt this proposed calendar. >> i. commissioners item 6 case for 280 through 288 union street. i'd like to announce as a benefit to the public there's no procures established for this type of item so the chair has determined there will be a presentation from stapling staff

and the public can submit their comments up to 3 minutes each >> good afternoon, commissioners tim fry department staff. the item before you is not to consider the merits of the project but rather to determine whether the decision on the appropriateness by the planning department should be reviewed by this body. the administrator c a for the installation of two roof decks and associated work was issued by the dependent on december 18th of last year on january 6th they received the documents from the taenlts pr they made the commission aware

that the issues were investigated by our code enforcement team from march to may of 2013. the records indicated the subject building was permitted and finalized bs as complete by the alleged violation was closed. the co a was consistent with the motion which spaethd the planning for the staff for approval. representatives from the subject building and the hearing requester are here as well if you have any questions are if the h pc desires a presentation they'll file the certificate and

we'll prepare a case report and schedule the item for a future hearing if the h pc determines their within their authority pursuant to the delineation and determines the hearing is not warden and they've approve the permit. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions i'll let the representatives speak on behalf of their requests >> thank you, commissioners any questions for staff at this time. >> seeing none, we have 3 adrenalins or minutes from the requesting party and we'll move onto the any public comment?

which we have several cards >> thank you for the opportunity i represent the tenants and 5 owners on union street that's open the terrace. there's handouts - is this vision thing on? >> give us one second. >> just so the audience can have a chance to see what i'm providing for the commissioners this is the area were there used to be 48 foot wall. when i bought into the building and this was removed without permit and that happened in 2010. and if you see the juxtaposition of the coit tore two structures open that roof have never been

permanent but this is has escaped the per view of the planning group. so that would be the second penthouse and this which i am i didn't and are four feet above the legal limit and couldn't be permitted. so i want to quickly move on to the next item. the technical is the notice of violation which occurred in june of 2010 and this is a record of what the building department felt and they dropped the ball at one point i think they thought those people were pursuing a permit which never got past the planning state

because it was caught up at the countered. so finally, one of the reasons that this particular property has so many problems o problems in terms of pd it's complektsz was this structure that is concrete exfoliates 14 feet about above the grade level and on top of that is a garbage there's no rear yard. i would recommend that the group of presenting this application provide elevations which they've not done and we also need to a understand those railings are visible from the street if you looked at photographs 1, 2, and 6 in our packet you'll see from

the terrace you'll see the second illegal penthouse which blocks the tower >> thank you very much if we could have 3 minutes from the project sponsor. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners i'm with the rose group i'm here representing the project owner on union street. we also submitted a letter and it was read by the planning department. i'm here to ask that the request for hearing be denied it's not required at this point. we're looking at the type of project under the planning code and h pc motion the the h pc issues certain certifies and

that list includes non-visible rooftop desks. it's for the replacement of two rooftops on the building that was constructed in the 1980s and those roof sites excited up to 2010 and we're dealing with what previously excited. in fact, the guard rails are required for the owners to comply with the order order of abatement. the rooftop work would not be visible from the public street and not effect public views. the planning department properly determined that the rooftop planning area isn't part of the historic go character of the this and would fully comply with the stadiums for rules and regulations. we've heard the requesters have

raised a lot of building code violations, however, those items were investigated by building department. there are really no allegations before the commission that the planning department record in which the certificate of appropriateness was appropriate or that the work being proposed would have an impact on the historic part of the district. so we ask you deny this project to have it move forward >> mullin your testimony takes the playing place. we'll move to any public comment? (calling names) thank you >> good afternoon.

my name is monica i'm the owner on 202 union street for a year and a half i live there with my husband and two this boys. by the way, i love the district and the way it looks and thank you for doing that. our hoa is looking forward to finally, obtaining the permit so we can get the roof done and we can comply with the city requirement that we replace the rooftop rails. in the interest of time we also presented a letter on monday so i'll explain the letter. it's our understanding that there has been an unfortunate contention history from the neighbors on union who are requesting the meeting regarding the historic site but the

department the the building inspection have not found any of the comments for the current project. we could ily request the hearing is denied so it's limited to in kind right-minded of the installation of the railings for the issue of abatement. thank you very, very much for your 7, 8, 9 >> thank you richard green. >> hi. but my partner my sister owned dr. collin owns one of the properties since 2010. the hoa is requesting the space of a kind desk it was originally

moved because the desk leaked and it was initialed the permit through the department. the hoa has fully coordinated to make sure that the plan submitted were put back and applies with anything that the planning department requires. we don't understand why the - you know, we don't understand the reason for why that the desk should be held up so hopefully it will continue >> thank you. tere teresa. oh, i'm sorry thank you very much and john truman. >> good morning, commissioners.

my name is john i'm an owner of the joint property on union street. i note that council for the 280 and 86 testimony doesn't dispute a single issue but dismisses them all as unrelated. building height and buildable areas not only gateways because of the net of the contains it results in a demolishing sightlines and views within the telephone graph hill district. i urge you to continue with the full proceedings >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, back to you, commissioners. . commissioner johnck. >> well, i'm not convinced

there's been miss steps on the part of the staff and especially listening to the system today and reading the materials and also reading the departments work program for the next year i wouldn't support a hearing on this so - >> thank you commissioner pearlman. >> i wanted to say all the concerns all this information about the building permits from the 1980s that thas has no bearing on what we're considering today. if it's true the only thing we're considering is the in kind replacement of the desk i believe the staff issued it correctly and wouldn't support a hearing for this >> thank you commissioner johns. >> i agree with the prior two

commissioners. the wrong simmering dispute between those two neighbors is going to be resolved. this is not the proper place to resolve it based on the matter that we have before us. that is the in kind replacement. there are other issues and we shouldn't use this in kind question in order to open up other business >> commissioners, any questions or comments? >> do we need a motion. >> commissioners you should make a motion and the motion would be either to hold a hearing or not hold the hearing. >> i make a motion to not hold a hearing. >> thank you. >> on that motion to not commissioner hyland.

commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda. commissioner castillo. commissioner wolfram and commissioner president hasz. sfoomz o so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and places you on president reports my when are we going to invest that >> commissioners at the end of last year the planning commission updated and rice their rules and regulations i'll make the same recommendation to this body. it's been sometime you may want to revisit some of the hearing measures that would enlighten the public as far as what the speaking order and presentation accidents afforded at least from

my point of view it would be helpful for me and the public themselves. so if you want that maybe we can begin entertaining issues with the officers at our monthly meeting and we could calendar for adaptations >> let's do that the other one that comes up is the election of officers so at the end of the year we want to wait until the members are seated so it pushes it off until march so let's do the offers elections rather than january one. now whether or not you agree with that we'll talk about that. if there's other issues in the meantime if you could shot my do you have a note.

that was all my comments for now >> if 0 nothing further move on to the draft minutes for the, 2013 review committee meeting and the draft meeting for the december 14th accounting regular meeting. >> commissioner pearlman. i want to thank i for capturing a word i didn't and dense meeting on december 4th. there were a couple of names not spelled correctly. on page 2 a is jamming ma graft >> i'm sorry this is under the committee review meeting. >> yes. >> two presenters james mcgraft that's not the spelling of his

name. >> i'll note that. >> on payment 3 under my testimony about 60 percent it talks about the dow park and pauly is pa lecturing l e you didn't y that's the dallas mime of art. then on page 5 under director rams system it talks about the bears building i think that's the beers building >> yes. indeed. >> let's see then on page 8 the second paragraph under my testimony near the bottom it says but it seems like an

ingenious it should be a disingenuous it's the second to last sentence in my testimony the first of the second last line it should say a disingenuous it changes the meaning. page 10 james mcgraft again. and then page 11 commissioner wolfram's i'm a little bit on the defense i simply meant on the fence (laughter) >> and that was i'm sorry. >> page 11 commissioner wolfram's testimony. other than that i thought well captioned. >> oh, yeah. a little bit on the fence. >> commissioner hyland. on page 2 under my testimony in addition to the sliver s l iv e

r. indeed thank you. so i move to adapt the in that was it; right? >> i move to adapt. >> let's take this ar c it's separate. >> yeah. i should accept some any public comment? >> so we'll do any public comment on the ar c minutes. seeing none, public comment is closed back to you, commissioners. >> motion to adapt and we're taking it separate. >> so there's a motion and a second for the ac or r.c. minutes commissioner honda.

commissioner johnck. commissioner johns arrest commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and commission president hasz that so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7 to zero >> thank you, commissioners any comments open our regular meeting minutes for december 4th. seeing noneseeing none - oh, >> i move approval. >> we also do comments on the minutes. >> yes. seeing none, back to you, commissioners. >> motion to approve. >> second. second. and then on that motion to adapt the minutes for december 4th >> sxhvld. commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. sxhait. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and commission president hasz u