item? or in items 5, 6 or 7. >> is there a motion to remove 6. >> i move to authorize the approve 5 and 7 commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya and commissioner wu. smoomdz that places unanimously and item 6 will be heard as the first item under our regular calendar >> item 8 consideration of the draft minutes for january 9, 2014. >> is there any public comment on this item? on those drafts

minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya >> i move to approve the minutes for january 9th. >> commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya and commission chair wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes >> i went at the request of some neighborhood folks in the bayview to look at the site where the mother brown special project for the homes structure. there are so many interesting businesses like a chemical will he testing lab it tests toxins in the food and it's where tests are conducted.

another place i saw next door had mick tractors and does a lot of work around pets and par suddenly. it's favshg to see this. and their concerns are whether or not the location of the shelter, of course, is appropriate for what the needs are and the other concern is whether or not there's actually, the population of the homeless population in the neighborhood to continually of the shelter. there are concerns around whether or not there's social activities in the neighborhood in terms of social services. it was interesting to talk to them and hear about their issues and to learner more about it are i recommend that other commissioners this is interesting just generally to see the types of things that are

happening in the city. second i went to the retail focus group that president fong was there and it's interesting and i look forward to disbursing that further >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i want some clarification from staff probably to the mayor's office. mayor ed lee announced as part of his housing project thirty thousand now housing units but it's not clear i don't think what that thirty thousand was referring to. there's entitled projects to the tune of 50 thousand in the pipeline report that includes the evenly and treasure island and park merced and another 3

thousand that are entitled. it also, we also have around in the pipeline report around 7 thousand seven hundred units that are that have plans and so could we get some - is he referring to thirty thousand new units on top of the pipeline do you know are those included in someway >> it will help to get clarification. my understanding it's thirty thousand unit to be built some of which are entitled many of which are entitled. so try to get that number built in the next of years >> but it includes all the stuff in the pipeline at the moment? okay >> if there's nothing further we can move on to directors

naunlts. >> commissioners, i wanted to report to you on the last meeting the housing task force we had a very good discussion last week about a number of comments and a number of ideas that both departments put on the table for addressing the current housing situation we had the idea of seeing which one of those items can moved. tomorrow's meeting we're going to annoyance the lists from the departments and we've been asked to respond by the mayor by the end of the week. we need to report to him what actions we're taking in the short-term actually short-term and midterm and long-term. the short-term actions are the actions that can streamline our

processes like having the departments doing a parallel reviews and actually several folks have raised looking at making sure we prioritize projects that are one hundred percent affordable or have a higher level of affordability. we're also reviewing some administrative changes. so we will be preparing a draft memo actually staff is working on it right now we'll certainly share that with you all and disbursing that with this task forces tomorrow afternoon to get their feedback. certainly, if you have any more questions i'll talk about that no more detail >> item 11 review of past weeks

event board of appeals and the restoration he meeting they didn't meet yesterday. >> and there was no board report board of supervisors report they didn't moot this week. >> in this case we can move onto the public comme of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda with receptor to agenda items you'll tunnel i opportunity will be for another when it comes up. for up to 3 minutes you may address i have no speaker cards >> any general public comment? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 6 from the consent calendar was pulled and we'll take that matter up now.

>> good afternoon vice president and members of the commission i'm from the staff. the item before us is to establish an office doing business as on jackson street in the special use district and the jackson square historic district we propose to have an office in a commercial space previously occupied by a gallery is there any additional public comment? in antics and it's a design firm and design blifts it has the design in the district. to date we've received and letter of support from the jackson district a petition of support signed by 11 merchant in

the jackson square district. since our packets have been received we have received one letter of support. the department recommends approval and building it's desirable for the following reasons the proposed office will with a be a commentary use for the designers in the district and the district use is combining it's two fronts on jackson street. the proposed office is 16 hundred square feet plus and won't effect employment in the area. the project provides an actual use adjacent to the sidewalk level and will remain open to the public and there are design

dismays for open office for transparency into the space. thankful been unable to have a tenant but the vitality of the historic district will remain the same and it will be retrieved. it will be more locally operated offices by allowing the architecture design office to be lope local. it meets all the code. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. is project sponsor here? >> hello, i'm melissa the ceo.

i'm the designer for the firm >> do you have a presentation? >> oh. >> if not - and we didn't anticipate having any but have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> we'll take any public comment? and ask you to come back up. any item? seeing none, public comment is closed. . commissioners? commissioner sugaya >> yes. thank you. i think the staff analysis has some flaws in it. first of all, the jackson square special use district has a specific language that says that all decisions of the planning commission shall be guided by the following factors the continuous of the enhancement of the ground floor uses that are critical to the character of the

district, and, secondly, the transition and of the retail starments that reform to the district. it mentioned the density of employment. it goes on to say the su d further makes the finding to preserve the historic resource and no other use can be demonstrated to preserve the historic resource. i don't see how an office use is comparable with those particular requirements. when in fact, office use is already constitute 42 percent of the uses on the ground floor vs. retail which is at 25 so we're adding another percentage that doesn't sound like a lot but

this is the same we have every time we look at the shadow ordinance which .01 doesn't present a shadow but when we look at it grouping that's when we have some issues. it says in the basis for recommendation that the office expects he less than 10 visitor a week with you also i can't see how that then generates active use at the ground floor. i would imagine if you're a retail establishment your expecting 10 people in the morning or afternoon i don't know how many this establishment gets but i don't understand the argument that the office will

remain open to the public. does that mean i can go in the front door and warned around and talk to people as i please. we had an office on the ground floor. our door was open nobody ever came in except to find out about the historic status of the building but we wouldn't allow people to wander around. so how can we make the argument this a public use. for those reasons i can't support the additional use >> thank you councilmember ford. >> staff can you address some of the concerns of commissioner sugaya. >> the character of the district the retail uses are not what you normally see for general retail that is open to

the public. many of the retailers in jackson square work with designers and a lot of the designers are by appointment only or where the general public purchases tements items for but more info architects. so many of the office uses are capable in terms of being interior design and architecture. it's - that's the basis of why we felt this type of office was capable with the retailers in the district. we've previously approved one office in the district that is also an architecture and design firm with similar conditions so that's the precedent we used for this approval. let's see if you're concerned

about the density of visitor and active use the code talks about the open to the public and being transparent and visible so the produce are sponsor has development their retail look at the front. any more particular questions i can answer and a commissioner moore >> i'm surprised we're describing this as a retail place when you look at wonderful things and windows it's the basic nature of the district. i'm concerned that delaying fundamental stuff in architecture use is not the e 1ru7b89 if they have delays in their window. the one thing i shunld over the

report said their is no division of the occupancy of the store has 1 or 2 people we're seeing 10 workstations here in a fundamentally efficient architecture office but that's not equivalent of the way the report was handled. i have a problem that putting this on consent doesn't allow the commission to discuss the project in the spirit of what i think any special use district sees you should do. a consent is a consent it's not abo

agreeing or not arresting but perhaps the director or secretary can talk about that and if the city attorney could weigh in or perhaps a followup to my question >> commissioners in terms of what we place on consent there's a discussion with the president about items that have not generated any feedback usually and it's a straightforward item to make a well, not also but when we use that as the basis of consent but there's the ability for anyone to comment and pull it off. >> okay. can i ask a followup question on the public inquire and where this project falls in.

>> it was a changed use from retail management to professional services. the retail foe is hire or higher than the other fee so it wasn't applied to this project >> okay. thank you. commissioner hillis >> i mean, i agree with commissioner sugaya's concerns but i think the staff gave a good response. it may point to i don't know how would this is but jackson square isn't your typical kind of retail corridor so, i mean again commissioner sugaya's concerns i'm going to agree with the staffs presentation why this is

okay. and i'm going to move to approve >> second. >> i'm not sure just a nuance to consider but if we don't have 4 votes to disapprove. >> unless there's a continuance for the other commissioners to weigh in. >> but if it fails you can't make a continuance. >> there's a motion and second commissioner borden arrest commissioner moore. commissioner wu excuse me. that motion fails 3 to 2. commissioner borden >> i'm going to ask for a continuance. >> february 6th would be the next quorum.

thank you commissioner borden there's a motion for february 6th did he hear a second >> second. >> on that motion to continue to february 6th. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. and commission chair wu so it passes with commissioner moore voting against. and that will place you on item 12 for the informational

presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners claudia flores i think you're getting copies of the presentation. i'm with the staff of the other city departments from the mta and the workers development to give you an overview on a new program. this includes participation from as i mention from the puc and the recreation of the parks department and the mayor's office of housing and the san francisco public health department. before we launch into this i'm going to turn it over to to ken

rich who is here to address you >> good afternoon ken rich from o e w d. i'm here to introduce you to our new public sites initiative for under all the other evidence pieces of land with a particular unifies for affordable and middle income housing as you know mayor ed lee focused 0 on our cities housing crisis. overall we're to have thirty thousand new units by 20/20 and more than half would be in the reach of middle income you households. i'll be happy commissioner sugaya to answer our questions.

we have a 7 point plan and one of the points creates important middle income housing to help this happen so we're starting that today. in a moment planning staff will go through the principles. we're not listing at this point the specific sites because the right thing to do is reach out to the stakeholders and neighborhoods. each site we want to assure you will have vigorous responses. i want to reiterate our commitment of the mayor and to the staff in creating nor affordable housing in the neighborhood and the land must be part of the solution and i'll give it back to claudia

>> thank you, ken i want to also acknowledge olsen lee who has walked in to join us. one of the program goals that ken described we want to have this for the growing needs for jobs and services. we don't have to prove or explain that the city is growing and we need more affordable housing as well as transportation and open space and others. we want to also those sites are shafrtd throughout the city so we have those sites be a good model. it's important we support the agencies operation. the real estate assets and holding of those are they're to support the mission of the

agencies to provide the services their directed to provide so was we look at the opportunities we want to make sure that's the case. as we look at other public benefits we want to make sure their original intent is being served. we want to model the strategies of high benefits for privy sector development. and lastly we want to make sure we're coordinated as a city. one of the components of the program as ken mentioned we're drafting a framework for the discussions. i will talk about that but we looked at what is the existing city policy say about public land so we created a draft framework and we wanted to give you a sense of what we're talking about when wear saying

principles in a framework. we want to got up a comprehensive benefit that can be provided collectively so what does that mean in terms of the those programs. we have a set of strategies and tools so once we have the memo of the tools we'll apply all this on specific sites and do some site planning and develop some rfps and start the development of the specific sites. what might be the benefit of the coordination. currently some of the sites are located where the development is difficult. also, if you go on a site by site approach sometimes the

community focuses on no pain revenue resources like open space. so we have open documents and policy to see where the highest need is for open space and can we spread those no revenue across the sites and combine them that support other services. related to that we look at them in isolation so not only at the collection of the whole sites what could those sites be used for. the potential that the public will have better information both the public and decision makers can look at this and not have the discussions individually and we want greater benefits of services.

we talked about noolt in terms of strategies. what might be some areas for piloting new approaches for housing and sustainability under housing we can pilot a version of the prop c where you can have the inclusionary housing. around transportation in addition to various transportation infrastructure can we live for example the management programs. currently only development agreement like treasure island or the shipyard can we have transportation and management programs or other strategies. and lastly sustainability. as another aero where we can be innovative. the department has done a lot of

work around the eco industries. we'll give you an up to date about the work can we pilot and create new eco districts for the program that is. the initial focuses is on enterprise agency sites they include the airport and puc and the mta the recreation and parks and some of the museums. but we're only starting with mta and puc sites. why are we focusing on those. they have significant land holding and have to report their property to the city ordinance but there's a little bit of easy around the process there's a separate