planning commission regular hearing for thursday, march 6, 2014. please be aware that the commission did not tolerate any drupgz it's and when that speaking before the commission if you care to state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll. commissioner wu. president fong. commissioner hillis. commissioner antonini. commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya. commissioners first on your agenda are consideration for items for continuance we had none but we do now. under consent calendar for the case at the 5001 lakeshore plaza is being proposed for indefinite

continuance there's a procedural matter and that matter needs to be continued indefinitely. the next case at the 2051 third street under planning code there's a request from the project sponsor an oakland maritime support services council to continue to march 27. further on our discretionary review calendar commissioners we have a request from the dr requester for the case 13 d and v on 21st street for discretionary review and germany would voices you to take up the

matter, however, the opposing council is here to speak to the matter are before you now. okay. thank you. i would suggest we take up the question of the continuous separately >> there are two speaker cards. >> public comment on matter for continuance. i believe this is aaron. my name is sue hester this is for the disclosing heights area the major part of the house is in the various calendar but there's surveillance in the dir it's been a confusion for me per one is the list there's no

mailing to the dr requester his attorney and the adjacent property owner that's a matter of contentious. i got the notice my client again get the notice. aaron is the dr requester and angling angus neither of them got mailed notice. when i got the nail r mail notice and the other people the police put on the thing. the cross street is diamond street because this is my old neighborhood i know it's another hill. that is here is eureka valley and csa 0 electro is in the middle and here's delores heights. there was a lot of confusion and

people throw out the notices because it says dynamic street. i found the key review this was the cross streets which is doug and that's further west i lived in my old neighborhood. so one the notice didn't come out to or iron and my clients and angus has not gotten the notice of the preapplication meeting but he went away because he found out from his neighbor. there was a couple of things it included another reconciliation attempt to understand the survey my attorney my architect there was not able i couldn't reach

him. so then we got the first 3-d rendering of the first project so the 3-d hearing is important it's a steep neighborhood how steep it is and the issues that are relevant to this appeal have to do with this neighborhood. people don't walk around the area it's a steep steep area. so if you have the wrong cross streets it's huge it's not a flat street in the area they don't know where the 36 hundred block unless they live there >> any further public comment?

>> hello, i'm aaron i didn't receive notice myself and my father and we weren't the only ones from the neighborhood that doesn't. we went around and talked to our neighbors and many of them were confused by the hearing and how it's diamond street so should i throw this in the recycling and they were all confused by that and second confused because maybe it's the wrong address. so those r were the issues we had rewarding the notice everybody i talked were confused there's a lot of projects going on in the area and with the inclusive of the cross street mixed with the other projects in

the area i feel and the people in the neighborhood feel this is sloppy and should be renoticed. that's it >> thank you. thank you >> alice the attorney for the project applicants. first of all, at the preapplication meeting that's the one time where the project i mean, the dr requester was invesical left off the list so we're prejudice to that mistake. consequent to that the neighbors name is on every single list sent out we don't know whether

they received it and the mailing label used by department. as far as the architect actually e-mailed the dr requester and some of the other neighborhoods to let them know the 311 is going out and if they don't get it they'll be invited. the letter to this commission which you have in your packet is dated february 9th so the dr requester had plenty of time to review that, and, secondly, the new information that was e-mailed to michael smith. the 3-d upper side view rendering was requested that he department at the last minute to

have in hand so the questions raised so we prepared that for the 3-d at the request of the department. so far as the survey information again, it was in response to the neighbor across the street who raised questions about the accuracy so we sent the survey back out the new survey was missing information on top of the existing for which the garage was added and a couple of minor things were corrected and finally the other e-mail was michael smith sent on e-mail to the architect and you better contact the people across the street so we sent an e-mail when

we are that connected and how we missed each other. so none of that is new information that has to do with the dr requester itself so i urge this commission so deny the request for continuance >> any further public comment? >> yes. good afternoon. i'm speaking on agenda 9. i was retained on this case 4 days ago and the project sponsor agreed to a continuous three weeks is not enough given there's 15 families next to this project and there's been substantial changes since the project as presented two years ago and those changes have not

been presented so three weeks is not enough to get together with the families involved and the project sponsors and make changes to the plan that's the whole purpose of the meetings anyway. at fir they offered april 10th but now we have a date to get together >> thank you. >> hello, i'm jason, i represent the sponsor at 8051 third street we want to support our neighbors request we overwhelming be offended april 10th but i believe we'll

have an opportunity to meet with the neighbors before that date. >> thank you. any further public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. a couple of things the continuous i'd like to continue to the 27th there's not enough meetings then it can be put off to a further time now the property on 23rd street mr. smith could you come up and answer a question. attorney for the project sponsor mentioned that the mailings had been made and you can substantiate those were sent out for the people who said they

didn't get them >> i have here the notification filed for this project and notice was mailed to 2066 to the folks home in preparation for this hearing. >> can you substantiate it was presented by project sponsors attorney a request was made fairly recently for the 3-d rendering is it true. >> yes. the request was made about 10 doables. there's no new information for the last week so the rendering you see at the in front is something the project sponsor said they had >> thank you. appreciate it well, my feeling we need a date

it's an indefinite and continue 8 indefinitely and the to the 27th we'll take up the issue of 21st street today. >> did he hear a second. >> could i ask a question. is fine we still reserve the right to continue it fine i'll second that motion i might ask the zoning mist has an issue on that whether or not he has an opinion on the continuous >> no, the project has been properly noticed g but if you want additional time that's fine

as well. >> commissioners, i do have a motion and a second shall i call the question. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i'm going to vote against the item i want to take them secondly, at least the item 11. i think open item 11 it isn't p a matter of whether the address is on there we're being told by the dr and attorney they didn't receive it to procedurally i understand that the list is there and whoever they use to send things out may have done that but it's more important probation officer to me to consider whether or not it actually arrived and now we're being told it didn't i understand project sponsors

arguments but i think in order to be a little bit more fair about it i vote for a continuous for some very short period of time >> commissioner antonini. >> mr. smith did you want to respond to the concerns that were placed by commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. michael with the staff. once again our records say the notices were mailed to the households that were supposed to receive the notice. the normal process would be if 20 percent of the people showed up otherwise didn't receive the notice and another points the point of the notice itself is to notice the hearing we're having here today. i met with the dr requester at her house in preparation inform the hearing before the notice

went out and they called me after the poster went up as well and they also participated in the setting of the date that happened a month or so ago. it's staffs opinion they've known about the date >> and as a result of the notice on the property it's noticeable. >> they've met with staff and are aware of the date it's a technical immaterial whether or not they didn't receive a notice perhaps because of the post office i would support the motion. >> then commissioners there is a motion and second to continue item 8 indefinitely and item 9 to march 27 and hear items a and

b. >> that doesn't have to be part of the motion that's my intent with you we're only passing on the two items. >> very good so on the matter of continuing 8 indefinitely commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya >> we're leaving 11 out. >> yes. commissioner fung and commissioner wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. hearing no other motions let's move on is your consent calendar.

all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single role call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item one case 2014 at 16735 request for conditional use authorization thrdz. there are no cards >> any public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> on that motion to approve marry commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner borden. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung. commissioner wu that places you on consideration of draft minutes for february 20th, 2014, >> is there any public comment

on the draft minutes seeing none, public comment is closed. move to approve >> second. >> on that motion to adapt the draft minutes commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis marry commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung and commission president wu >> commissioner comments and questions is next. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i was commenting there was an article written in the sunday paper talking about the sdrirpg this which is the highest in the united states but we have to realize that san francisco is a special situation for all we're a city and county so that being said oftentimes

other cities are being compared are part of the county and generally affordability requirement or suggestions are by a county level so in many stance affordable housing will be spread out over many county that list on those situations also in san francisco with your dealing with a city you surrounded by water and a decision in 1856 when the county line was put south of san francisco and the rest of san francisco was made into san mateo county so the highest city has one hundred and 5 thousand resident is near san mateo and the pacific can are a lot of

housing that's a little bit more affordable particularly to the middle class so it includes areas to the peripheral of those cities so the difference between lack of income for the resident. although we have a problem we don't have enough housing for the middle in connection range and single-family homes that are attractive to people we have to build harassing as many as we can and we may have to change the county line and some factors beyond our control but we can mitigate some of the problems by preserving as many single-family

as we can so when we read those studies we have to realize, you know, we're comparison apples and oranges even new york city which is a city of 5 counties there's more of a decent there's more room to spread out homes not like manhattan. it's good to read and look at all the factors involved >> i wanted to comment on what's called the housing production summary it's compared and so we now have the numbers through the end of notifying

starting in 2007 and in the over moderate category there's one hundred and 90 percent and under on the golds for the other wunz ones i believe a number of discussions will be happening in the housing element we should use those to guide your housing development in going to that process. >> if there's nothing further commissioners item 4 directors announcements. >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners. just wanted to let you know we're kicking off a new public realm design for ocean avenue and having two public events in the next few days this saturday a sight walk 10:00 a.m. to noon meeting at the 1901 ocean avenue

and next thursday at the glob dean high school we're kicking this off in the local community to look at pedestrian improvements on ocean avenue, and, secondly, there was you might have heard a press convention they announced the new pedestrian safety for the city reflecting the need to increase the pedestrian safety in the city because pedestrian accidents have been on the increase and the mayor and department head and supervisors were altogether to put forth the strategy of design and short term solutions solutions that will help improve pedestrian conditions all over the city there are 6 street sectors that are responsible for 0 of percent

of the serious accidents so we'll looking at those streets and from a enforcement standpoint. so we'll keep you informed on that >> that that concludes my presentation. thank you >> commissioners item 5 the past review of events board of appeals there was a historic preservation meeting. >> good afternoon emily at the board of supervisors they considered a few public and land use items on tuesday the first, what the appoint to the market or citizen's advisory council and the board approved the following members (calling names) were all approved on tuesday also before the board on tuesday the final reading is a landmark

designation this is known as old st. mary's direction thank you it was recommended for approval of last year. the zoning map changed related to st. boniface was approved on first reading. this was sporpd by supervisor jane kim and it's a rezoning to r-3. in january, the planning commission recommended the approval the zoning map change. lastly on tuesday the board also approved on first reading that will allow non-conforming structures to be rebuilt this is for the apple store near union square and last week it was at the land use committee and

supervisor jane kim amended this ordinance the change would only apply in the block near the apple store and this week the board approved the ordinance on first reading. there were a couple of introductions i wanted to share first snaring introduced a hearing forephenomenon the budget and analysis report to prevent and fill commercial vacancies in the upcoming hearing, and, secondly, the mayor as well as supervisor cowen and supervisor campos and commissioner wu introduced an ordinance that will amended the pdr controls and those will be for your consideration for next week. that concludes my presentation unless there's questions >> the board of appeals will be

meeting next week good morning tim try department staff her to share the results from the historical preservation commission deprave it's final recommendation to the board of supervisors for the landmark designation of the dunham and - building. the building is significant for its association with the company and with the products that the company produced during the gold rush as well as the post 1906 reconstruction. it's a fine example of the early 20th century style with the

brick and mortgaging at the require a publicly assessable historic interpretation to be located on the site of the property which will be included before the item is heard before the board of supervisors at the future date. there were a few tenants that spoke they hearing and raised concerns about primarily not the designation but the change of use of the property. the planning code allows for landmark codes to convert from pdr zoning to office as of right. the concerns again were not over the landmark designation but the potential changed of use. the prove or disprove has applied to convert the