if you care to please do state your name for the record. >> i'd like to take roll. commissioner president wu. commissioner fung. commissioner antonini. commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya >> first on our agenda will the continuance item one consideration of adaptation of minutes to the general plan excuse me. related to the update the recreation and is for continuance and case two amendments to the planning code for the medal cannery dispenses is proposed april april 2014.

item a and b for the case at the 660 third street are for april 3rd, 2014. commissioners we've received item 11 the formula retail controls today and tomorrow informational presentation this was a request from supervisor mar's office to teaspoon the matter actually april 10, 2014. staff is in support and item 14 at the 2051 third street request for a authorization the project sponsor is requesting a continuance i have several speaker cards and under our

krerg review calendar at the 1110 ash bureau street request for discretionary review the project sponsor wants to continue actually april 3rd, 2014, >> okay. let's open this up for public comment i have a number of speaker cards (calling names) and the public public comment is about the matter of continuance alone. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm a homeowner adjacent to the

rain tree development. i support the continuance although we're requesting it be pushed out further first there's a tree removal appraisal scheduled and board of appeals that's regarding the removal of two significant trees at the site if we prevail at that appeal there would be significant design challenges to move forward. it seems good soon may first to come before the commission again and that appeal hadn't happened. the second is the proposed height of this project we believe a new shadow study needs to be done and that's not been

done the third reason would be there are some 60 legal codes depraved south facing windows on the building that are not shown in the plan the information before you so we need time to address how those windows will be treated. again some more time and ultimately time to meet with the dealerships as homeowners and come up with a responsible development that allows 80 us to co- exist and we're requesting a turns out in may for the issues that be resolved >> thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm laurie i live on illinois street. i have something i want to show can you use the overhead >> as long as it's about the

continuance. >> it is. yes >> sfgov will put it up for us. >> so specifically, i think we need i'm in support of the continuance along the may first foyer all the reasons the gentleman outlined but i believe that the design currently on the board is not addressing the industrial area guidelines for a residential building. this is illinois street. i also wanted to show you and submit those drawings that are the photos actually that show how close the building is and the impacts that have not been addressed. our deck spaces and our windows.

they haven't been addressed in the plan. can you submit those to you? okay that is all. thank you. >> thank you. >> >> next speaker i'm victor i live on illinois in the shipyard lots of thank you for allowing me to speak those are my censures i've yet to see what the impact those are will have on our homes. i also want toy know those windows are there before and it will abut the building i'm

concerned with about the trees they're the few trees left in our neighborhood i'm concerned about the park because on a shadow studies have been done >> the public comment is not on the project itself only the continuance. >> thanks in closing i've been there since seven years and i work there i'll be living in a dark pitch so i want this to be resolved. appreciate it >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> so my name is sharon i'm one of the homeowners in 2011 third street on the last two speakers were on the illinois side we're

facing different streets but our sort of patios and decks have open space that will be closed up by the rain tree development and they gave us a couple more plans. >> again keep our comments to the continuance. >> we would like to continue to work with them so i guess i don't know if we need to show these we want to include these in our - . so we have worked with them but we want to see more work done. this is the front facing and my neighbors were talking about the

back facing it is their prospective from the front. i'm going to submit this to you. in my closings we'd lying like to keep working with rain tree as a responsible neighbor. thank you >> thank you for think so to us i support the continuance for all the same reasons the windows and the height of the building is my main concern i live with sharon we're in the back and there's a wonderful rooftop and a building blocking the view i support the continuance and the height it's going to set for the purpose 40 for the other side of our building will be barricade in a cannon the project is too

high and not consistent with the neighborhood it doesn't need to be a whole story higher it can be leveled thank you for your time. >> thank you. any further comment on matters for continuance? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm steve williams i'm supported the continuance for the development as well. we simply need more time as you recall i was here three weeks ago and asked for more time we don't want to come back so we want to push is out so the issues pending are taken care of.

there is currently another appeal pevent at the board of appeals for may 7 so it doesn't make or make sense to hold a hearing before that date. in my opinion if you saw my brief and e-mails this 0 needs to be renoticed under section 312 the staff has deferred it so we good thing whether it will be renoticed the elevation for the public in general i don't know how that can be skipped over. that's the kind of information the simple elevation that should have been not rushed through a final hearing for approval so we're waiting for the determination from staff this goes for the vial.

the park was just established in december the environmental review of this project was done in april. several months before and they totally missed this new 9 acre park directly across from illinois street. there's no prejudice we want to say it's highly prejudicial for a hearing to be continued and so we ask the date be at least may 23rd or 19 >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jason check i work with rain tree acres we're the applicant on 23rd street weaponry here in

support of the continuances when we late met and again in support of the continuance we've met with the homeowners along the shared property line as well as going into the roof-deck that was referenced and took measurements so we have drawings that we have prepared picture we're redescribe r distribute those to the folks here and we now understand that may first is the first date that is available so we propose to support the may 1st >> commissioners i mean, i'll be very, very brief i'm recommending the third street we 79 mayor first or 15 we can be back her in a month and

apologize for the details it shouldn't be based on the tree aspect the fact this one happened to be in front of the project has no merit to the continuance i don't believe so. >> thank you. any further public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> i'm going to move the following continuances. continue item one actually april 3rd and 2 and 3 a and b to april 3rd item 11 to may 10th and item 167 to april 3rd >> second.

>> commissioner moore. >> my understanding was we were moving 663 street to may? >> one. >> one and i heard this being called out at april. >> no 663 street is for continuance actually may 3rdrd. >> i'm sorry you're right. >> didn't i clarify it. >> you did correct i was wrong. >> commissioners there's a motion and second to continue matters commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 7 to zero. and consent calendar

to be routine of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 4 case at 2288 i have no speaker card >> any public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya >> move to approve 2288 broadway with conditions. >> on that motion to approve commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung and commissioner president wu.

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes draft minutes for the prior meeting i want to bring to our attention under item 12 on the draft minutes there needs for a correction that commissioners one way or another and commissioner antonini voted against that >> could you repeat. >> item 12 it was a discretionary review hearing. >> okay. >> okay. any public comment on draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini >> move to approve as corrected. >> second. >> on that motion to approve. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya and commissioner president wu.

smoemdz unanimously 6 to zero because of t because of the cancelation. commissioner item 6 commissioners, any questions or comments? >> just a couple of things i had coffee with the president of a university in another city this city has some serious economic problems and she asked me the question why is there opposition to the things in san francisco so far as job creation and increased property values and i was hard-pressed to give me her a reason in her city that would like those things happening but i have a question. the question is in regards to

last week's legislation rewarding in-law units and i'm not entirely clear i don't need an answer today there was some confusion when i asked commissioner president wu whether the legislation toom took place in no fault evictions in the last year's we were assured it takes place after the passage of law but it's confusing how does this apply. let's assume have a single-family home with an illegal unit and this unit is not a legal unit i don't think so how it can be considered a eviction or if you have a family member move in there needs composer o more clarification and seems odd even if that were

to happen if someone moved a relative in you want to improve the unit he may be talking about another unit but it's confusing so we may get a clarification when ms. rogers answers or part of her report >> if it mrs. the commission the rent control ordinance does apply to renters whether or not the unit is legal or not it's separate and in this case, the protections for or the remit that apply to people about what you, do after you evict someone applies after the law takes

effect so they're not contained by this law as of the date of law. >> i've also heard someone who lives in an illegal unit don't have the protection under the law but for rent yes. >> i have heard that. >> thank you for your clarification. >> okay. i wanted to let the commission that i was able to take part in a shift at the planning information counter i didn't give information out but it was illuminating i learned about the public enter face the planning department for that people who come to the counter so that opportunity is available >> if there's nothing further

department matters item 7 directors annuities. >> i want to and my second part i'll report on the fire damage in mission bay but since this item was detailed i want to recognizeful his last day is tomorrow but that item was conditioned and he's been with the department are nearly 14 years and stepping out into another position in a town remind me ben and i wanted to wish him well on his new position. >> thank you. i won't take a a lot of time it's a city up in the upper california it's been a pleasure working with you all so

it's been lalia lure and i look forward to crossing paths with you in the future. >> congratulation you will be missed. >> thank you ben secondly, i want to report on the building in maintaining that was that was on fire a couple of weeks ago it was a building on block 5 many mission bay it was property for one hundred and 72 unit this same developer has not project about a half block away and that project was not effected. block 5 that was the subject of the fire contains about one hundred and 72 unit about one hundred and 16 secret of retail that was a building that stepped

down from 5 feet their ceasing the dangle and they don't know if they can salvage things they think the clear up will take about 4 weeks. dbi knows the foundation is sale available but the mroumd e appointed it under consideration there are building across the street that has damage one was opened one was block 3 with one hundred and 47 market rates units. 54 units will require repair the

radiant heat caused the sprinklers to go off and some broken windows and doors because those are new they're able to relocate the tenants so folks will be able to temporarily are not only next door the adjacent block is owned by the same developer there was a couple of embers that landed on the one building. the intent of the assessor agency is to rebuild the building and i show point out there's a building across the street the mercy building had damage it is also underdevelopment under construction about one hundred

and 50 units so that mercy is still accessing the damage. to remind i the plans for mission bay the b m r building is in separate building within the complex and the mercy helps with the affordable housing requirements for mission bay there were not affordable housing unit for this place i'll keep you informed especially to see how much the construction they can salvage >> thank you. >> commissioners item 8 review of past events at the board of supervisors there was no meeting for the board of appeals. >> i'm ms. rogers here to give you an update.

first, as we discussed president chiu legislation for the illegal units was heard by the land use this week and it was credit card at the hearing it was recommended approval by a vote of 6 to one president chiu incorporated all our recommendations the recommendation that will allow up to 2 unit with 10 or more unit was not included in the revised amendment. unlike our hearing the committee on land use was lengthy in favor as well as opposition. most the critical comments came from the neighborhood like twin peaks they focused on the cost of legal listing the unit maybe passed into the tenant and allow

the unit to be used administratively could cause insuring the applicants names and addresses as well as protecting private agreements. the committee adapted some amendments at the hearing on monday that clarified the private information will be protected and another amendment was added to establish that the ordinance will not supercede the homeowners association agreements supervisor kim questioned if there were >> next speaker. >> in lieu of incentives to legalize this and supervisor cowen and supervisor kim didn't they comfortable and asked for more time but supported the caveat in moving it to the full board of supervisors so it was moved to the board without

recommendation of full support. there was a large appeal at the full board of supervisors the appeal of the sharp park habitat improvement was the sequa determination associated with a project. the board considered the appeal and the final deck in patrick can. many people attended the hearing again speaking in support as well as the opposition and supervisor kim and supervisor mar and supervisor campos talked about they're concerned first concern over the plans impact on speed and the amount of water flowing into the wetland and in particular the california red-legged frog maybe sensitive to