that san francisco, california quickly establish itself as a leader. one of the ways we're doing this to focus our enforcement resources and our education resources and our engineering effort you hear data driven we're using date as a model of for the city in terms of how we use our resources so who is driving that data i want to acknowledge ben rosenfeld and barbara garcia and her staff and tilly chang at the county of transportation authority and the planning department. we've had a lot of which the smarter mind but last but not least the staff of the mta the sustainable street staff a lot

of the bright minds in the city working together to analyze this data that will help us use our resources enforcement and education and when it comes time to pitting things in the ground the department of public works and mayor's office on disability and carmen johnson and tom from our building inspector we're working he together to put this stuff in the ground and that finally at the sfmta we're led had by a board of directors they've identified safety as the number one priority so i want to acknowledge sheryl bringing man here strongest voice advocating for bicycle and pedestrian safety and all the road users

with all the folks standing behind me and all the staff work and everybody in san francisco a taking on the challenge and responsibility to slow down and be aware and get around the city safer we can make this a great place so thanks to the folks behind me >> all of you looking forward to marking this a safer city. thank welcome to let san franco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, april 3, 2014. started please silence any mobile device and speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll.

commissioner president wu. commissioner fong. commissioner antonini pr commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioners first on our calendar is consideration for continuance of items at 3031 san francisco street is proposed for april 10, 2014, items 2 and 3 b and c at 660 third street is a conditional use authorization are proposed for continuance until may first, i have there are no speaker cards >> any public comment for items proposed for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners >> commissioner antonini. >> move to continue items one,

two a and b to the dates spifkd. >> xhopgs commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes naems 6 to zero and and places you under your consent calendar all matters are considered commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. there will be no separate decision of the unless the staff or public requests and it's severed at this point. case 3 intention to initiate the department code amendments to eliminating foes and item 4 at

the market street request for condominium subdivision and item 5 at the 718 composer condominium common versus at the 17th street request for conditional use authorization. i do have one speaker card for item 4 >> yes. allen. >> rerespectfully request this matter be taken off the consent calendar. >> we'll hear it first item of the consent calendar i'm sorry item 4. >> is there a motion commissioners? >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve items 3, 5 and 6. >> second.

>> commissioners, on that motion to approve item 3, 5 and 6. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong. commissioner president wu. 12340e78dz naming 6 to zero and on commission matters item 7 the draft minutes for march 6, 2014. >> there any public comment on the draft minutes seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya >> move to approve. >> on commissioners, on that motion to approve to adapt the minutes. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner president wu that so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. commissioner moore >> i wanted to ask the

commission again to support that the submittal requirement for all cases dr or cu whatever it is are made consistently cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices. ly in a timely manner we say a temp today, i intentionally didn't ask for it to be pulled no new submittals made and the ones that came in came by electronic notification that promoted me to ask the secretary to please forward a permitted copy because the drawing are learn a typical desktop printer produces and rightfully i was writing back and it would occur significant costs to not only print those draurz including message eric garcetti them that

is more expensive by given 7 commissioners they'll all get the packets i fully agree with him and him combaurd the gates that's an unreasonable request. when we have a temp continued today, we had one and we got a full set of drawings in the case i'm addressing we were not september a passage although the architect was notified nor any ability to review it with the 8 days notice we're entitled to see the drawings. i'm asking the department as a gate keeper caught in the middle and all the commissioners to insist and support that applications and submittals create a level playing field for

everybody there was a grow neglect omission of getty's the drawings. and that's for me an important issue. thank you >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i wanted to comment on an item we're passed an initiation to eliminate or reduce fees it's refreshing to see this is reducing fees. i know it's only an notification does it have to go through the supervisors >> no. >> you can initiate a change we're asking you to do. >> i'm optimistic we'll be

successful. >> thank you. commissioners that will place you under department 9 directors announcements >> commissioners, i wanted to give you a brief update on personnel changes of folks in the room mr. sanchez is moved in and amiri rogers is the new senior serious policy and will continue to over see legislation work and mr. star is taking over the legislation fairs so we have more changes in the department that concludes my report. >> thank you. >> commissioners item 10 review of past events at the board of supervisors. there was no board of appeals

hearing in the prehistoric >> aaron star at the land use committee scott wiener's ordinance was heard adding in-law units in the castro district that was heard on march 6 and was approved with modifications. the planning commission modifications included establishing a monitoring process that allows the department to require about the rental rates and the affordability of those units and scott wiener has a caveat that the individual property owners the information would be produced in aggregate form there

was additional things using the term accessory you units instead of the in-law units the in-law units act candle stick park act accessory units and to remove the seven hundred and 50 square feet issue and supervisor kim expressed her approval with that the committee forwarded this ordinance to the board with a recommendation and second was supervisor tang's ordinance the small business month is in may and amended the san francisco planning code to wave the permit fees for the month of may for the awnings and signs and accordances and signs on accordance and the installation of pedestrian lighting.

the commission heard the ordinance and recommended approval with modifications. the modifications including making the fee waiver permanent every may and supervisor tang split the file so that this year's may small business month fee waiver could moved and the replica will be heard pending a 10 day hold and it was recommended for approval and will be heard next week. if he full board the legal status to legal units was a heard it will allow the legislationtion of the units it was voted 6 to one so have approval to the supervisors and supervisor chiu recommended the recommendation two units to be leg listed in building with more

than 10 units and not included in the ordinance. supervisor heard this item at the first reading on tuesday since the land use committee other supervisors have signed on scott wiener supervisor breed and supervisor mar. there were two amendments to include the rh1 paralyze from the program and a proposal to revisit the ordinance in one 50 units none of the ordinances were passed but supervisor chiu wants a hearing one to two years after is effective date and this was pass is. supervisor wants this is to be

passed into the tenants and merging the units. in response supervisor chiu said this should not have to - supervisor kim expressed concern there's not enough improvement and believed the city may not receive applications yet she supported the opportunity to legalize the board was voting for this we had a marathon sequa appeal session regarding sfmta the appeal was heard the shuttle policy and pilot program was carolyn exempt and the pilot project as exempt under class 6 that is for information gathering and activities.

activities can be part of the program or action that's not been proved there's no unusual circumstances from the experimental regulations. many the case of the shuttle program sfmta proposed the shuttle providers serving intercity to apply for permits for the shared bus stops and they'll be succinct to concern operations and carry tracking device and the effectiveness of the program will be monitored and in an effective for the shared use of the bus stops the shuttles will be held responsible for one dollar for the bus stops. the appellants contended it caused rents around the location

to rise my bicycle safety backs couldn't be legally be allowed to use the bus zones and should pay more than one dollar. the board hearing lasted 6 and a half hours the topics were the baseline for the environmental review and the legal issues around the vehicle code and the evidence from the appellants and the exemption. board members critiqued the one dollar fee and encouraged sfmta to composers the bus and shuttle activities. supervisor farrell made a motion to upheld the motion and opted the appeal and scott wiener supported it and supervisor kim was in descendent.

finally one introduction supervisor wiener's public code amendment for the public facilities for the surface site permits to set fees for obtaining permits and make provisions and we've been working with the supervisor wiener's office and plans to bring it to this committee for retention >> commissioner moore. >> mr. star would you give for meat to the item the at&t boxed. >> yes. the separate permitting program that requires the preapplication outreach effort and sets concern standards for where they should and shouldn't be located. >> i'm glad something is

happening could you keep us posted in more detail when supervisor wiener is into it. >> our citywide team will bring this to you for recommendation. >> great start. >> commissioner antonini. >> mr. star regarding supervisor chiu's legislation that i i seem to remember when it went through us there was talk about the fact it if neighborhoods had cc&rs. >> i'll check on that for you. >> that possibly we have a ordinance. >> good afternoon yes

supervisor chiu it was included in the legislation this would not super seed the private agreements of the residential buildings so that's our concern. >> thank you. i guess it would have to be a neighborhood that has cc&rs. >> it was addressed because they also heard the comments at the land use committee and added language to address that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon tim frye her to share with you a few things from the preservation hearing a recommendation was forwarded to the board of supervisors to reclarify 1007 market street to

a contributory article 11 a building was constructed in 1911 and is already a contributor to the national register of peter lost district. the board of supervisors will take the item up at a future date and we'll keep you posted open that property. one other item to share was the planning department presented along with the task force a discussion they published last summer regarding the city's preservation program there were 3 topics of interest one was the initials of the historic resources and second the development of design guidelines based on the secretary of

interiors standard and the belittling 16 which you know outlines the historic resources under sequa. the department shared information on each of those 3 topics were already purr or developing information on each of those issues and one in particular the citywide survey we've included in scoping what that survey would look like in our fiscal budget that could take years to complete pr the overall scope and cost associated with that this fall and winter. we clublthd the hearing that the department will complete a schedule for the preservation 16 this fall we share that that

concludes my comments >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. mr. frying has the h pc or staff taken a look at the grant at this point. >> that's part of our efforts to scope really was it would entail we're looking at the possibility of the department doing the survey not outside consultants. >> that has been going on for a number of years. >> we'll definitely look into that. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move to general public at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest

to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when specifically spaefk >> is there any general public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places you under our regular calendar and case 2014 at 32 market street the request for condominium subdivision. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with the staff to convert a 6 unit building into condominiums and no alterations to the buildings are proposed other than the physical inspection report the department has received two letters no oppositions to the condo

conversions of the fair market value price of the unit being too high the incident of the purchase price is not within the pressure view and the tenant is a permanently disabled senior that that was under the subdivision organization and 3 which established a lifetime lease for tenant 55 years old or disabled but it is to be determined by the department of public works. that concludes my presentation. this is a condo conversion is there a project sponsor? or no single project sponsor? okay

>> if you'd like you can make a presentation. >> i'm amber wolf i'm here on behalf of the owners we received a letter from the attorney about the pricing as well as his status to elected tenancies those are two different paths so we're confused as well as the gentleman's ability to get the lifetime takency we'll offer that to him but we can't offer that without the conversion happening. as far as the pricing there's a note from the attorney making the comparisons of mr. winn's unit for example, my unit and technically square footage wise it's in explosives of mine and

go two car garage with storage that explains the difference in pricing. from observer prospective the pricing does not count. either of those things can happen in the conversion is not approved. that's all i have >> we may have questions later. >> thank you. >> thank you open this up for public comment is there a public comment on this item. >> good afternoon madam chair and members i'm the attorney for william wong who's the disabled tenant on market street. we're aren't necessarily arguing the pricing is wrong but the notice that was provided to the tenant i'll show you here. indicates that the proposed

sales price of the various price is unit one $750,000 and my clients 8 how thousands and going up. what's inaccurate is not that the prices are wrong those units are not being offered for sale not the prices for the unit for sale unit 5 is not for sale the owner perhaps bought this unit for $425,000 years ago but those units are stated as being offered at those prices so my it is not necessary sees this is $450,000 higher in price it's interesting to note he is a

disabled senior and his unit is priced $450,000 more. it's this obligation to review the condominium conversion to assure consistency with the general plan and it affords a affirmative action but affirmative action is a disserve because the notice it dispersuades a potential purchaseer of thinking about buying a unit when he sees his unit is being price for $450,000 more it's inaccurate for the notice that the tenant should alert the commission that the general plan is being that's right here because there's no

affirmative action in housing. it's descriptiony on its basis that a sdabltdz tenant receives a price of $450,000 more for a uncle we obtain to the item 4 that the refusal of intent to purchase was ininaccurately words. we encourage the commission so decline the conversion until such times agency the most to the attempt is correctly worded >> thank you is there any additional public comment i'm sorry seeing no public comment public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> maybe i can get a clarification from staff on this situation