happy new year commissioners and welcome back to the new calendar

year please silence all electronic devices. that may sound off and when speaking before the commission please state your name for the record. placing. commissioner wolfram. commissioner hyland. commissioner johnck. commissioner antonini. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioners first on your choornd is general any public comment? and the public and the public commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. you have up to 3 minutes. i have one speaker card arrest katherine howard please.

i'm ms. howard and in the rose working group with the open space elements it's an important document. >> you should have received the letter on this planning document. first of all, i want to say we appreciate the enormous effort we think s it needs tweaking to protect our parks. first of all, the rose opens up our parks for building sites. it clearly states 2.2 the city's policy should be made clear the recreational buildings should be outside of existing parks and playground. the city should allocated fund

and san francisco should not be in the position of having indoor facilities at the acceptance of outdoor space. the playground shouldn't have to be reduced for new cultural facilities. the new rose offers up a digestion. policy 1.3 encourages cultural buildings. the term cultural is not defined and can apply to any building put forget by any groups. that's why we ask the rose return to the 1986 building restrictions. secondly, the rose has incorporated good language on preserving golden gate parks for

the nature landscape, however, we're concerned that the roses proposal to open up the golden gate park master plan would lead to a full-scale dismantling open the park. other comments are in the letter you've received on various issues in the rose. we look forward to working with the planning department that will guide the city in the guidance of our parks. 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

oromments? >> 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