idle to voices the members of the audience kind and and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. irving at this point commissioner president wu. commissioner fong. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden.

commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya you commissioners first on your calendar is items for continuance. formula retail controls informational presentation is proposed actually may 44 e 24, 2014 items a b requests for discretion review is proposed for continuance until may first, 2014 and a variance is tail proposed for continuance actually april 23rd which is the next wednesday variance hearing the reason for the separation the dr is going to be withdrawn but if not, we're continuing

that matter out. commissioners hale that's all i have for continuance nrdz >> is there any public comment seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'd like to ask why item one is continued it's an informational presentation. >> that is a request from the board of supervisors from supervisor mar he wants to have his ordinance heard with ted's report bus that's it or supervisor mar's ordinance. >> it's not an action item for us either day. >> the ordinance i believe would be an action item. >> i'd prefer to have this heard as an informational item before an action item

italian-american i'm going to vote against it. we've had a series of presentations and then everyone can mull over those and make their decisions when the ordinance is brought before us. even though it's a supervisors request i like the procedure >> commissioner sugaya. >> move to continue item one actually, the 15. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes and is there a motion for item 2a >> commissioner antonini. >> motion to continue to may 1st for item 2.

>> on that motion to think continue. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously zoning administer >> i'll continue this case until april 23rd, 2014. >> thank you zoning administer commissioners, that places you under under your consent calendar their 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 3 case no. 23w0 14 at 1440

on filling better street the condominium conversion and the next at the 330 san jose after i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the consent calendar. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> move to approve. >> second. >> on the motion to approve all items under consent calendar. >> commissioner antonini pr commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under commission matters item 5 consideration of draft minutes for march 7, 2014 i want to point out one correction a typo on page 8 under sprshg hills

context this warrants additional analysis and calibration not warrant that's a typo >> thank you. is there that any public comment on the draft minutes. >> i think we're doing minor seeing none, public comment is closed. >> under the same item under david pill powell i think it's not out reached but outreach. >> thank you. duly noted. >> commissioner moore. >> move to approve with the items corrected. >> on that motion to adapt the minutes as corrected. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that

motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 6 commissioners >> i glanced at the wall street journal what city lost the highest percentage and number of jobs in the last two or three years i forgot the time period they think it's detroit and st. louis they named a bunch of them and the answer was about a large percentage los angeles lost 3 percent of their jobs see pointed out most of its even worse in the low income areas in los angeles sometimes that was 10 to 12 to 15 percent and the causes were employment laws and regulation fees and the ones that gained the most were houston and san antonio and

among the jobs created they 0 had a lot of entry-level jobs created that is instructional well meaning laws to increase the minimum wage and they have an effect on death penalty enthe entry-level jobs. then when we approve projects and various things to make sure that there are p dr jobs and entry level jobs so it's interesting and i believe it's yesterday wall street journal. thank you >> commissioner moore. >> i'm very happy to see that supervisor kim introduces a new legislation on hours balance.

declaring an su d with specific boundaries by which affordable housing would be monitored to be concurrent with marketing rate houses on line it's an interesting piece of legislation one richmond to the mayors mandate but complimenting supervisor wiener and supervisor chiu that innovative proposals looking at housing. there's an article out there i hope the director will give us an update i think this is an interesting pie and love to get more details >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i wasn't going to comment but in view of that i don't think this sounds good we did the eastern neighborhoods

and people don't want to consider each project a conditional use but be able to move forward. i don't see this is only stifling the affordable housing even less because there are no fees. and each of those projects has fees connected i know we'll get a report later but if when we talk about the percentage of affordable housing is that only inclusionary one hundred percent affordable or public housing and include rent controlled unit because most of the unit are de facto affordable. once someone leaves their market rate because the rent can be changed but we have to define the definitions of that what is

the percentage of affordable housing that exists in this particular area and they gave us a figure in the newspapers regarding the income levels in this ear how recent is that income there's been a lot of growth and newer condolences and rentals that tend to make that higher. in terms of staff when we moved we'll have to consider this legislation in the next few weeks i'll assume >> commissioner antonini i appreciate your comments please don't get into items that are not k4r5u7b9d. >> those are mainly two things i wanted to ask. >> thank you commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move on to departmental matters directors announcements.

>> i want to comment on the article regarding short term rentals and the role of the planning department. it's a prominent role and it inflated a couple of aforementioned. i wanted to clarify for the commission and public that the departments enforcement actions have nothing to do with evictions those are private matters between landlords and taentsd relating to leases. the complaints the department has received has entirely to do with unit held off the markets why no one it living in the unit and their rented as hotel rooms that's the vast majority of complaints and actions that we take are related to those types of dwelling units.

and, in fact, we submitted an letter to the editor i was concerned that the department was seen as being involved with the evictions we're noting importing and exporting nothing to do that the evictions >> commissioner antonini. >> director ram that kind of conflict article talks about two folks who were sub letting their rentals there's a concern idiom of those. >> the vast amazement of complaints are no one is is living in the unit full-time and there being a used as hotel rooms. >> commissioners item 8 the past event there was no historic

preservation meeting. >> good evening, commissioners there were no items concerning the planning department at the full board supervisor chiu's ordinance that grants status to the in-law unit as you recall this ordinance will allow legalization of the unit and this was heard on march 16 and recommended for approval on modifications it's with the mayor's office awaiting action and supervisor wiener's ordinance it unanimously passed the board the ordinance allows additional units in the castro this commission recommended 6 to zero for approval with modifications. this ordinance will have the second reading next week. and as was mentioned by

commissioner moore and commissioner antonini supervisor kim introduced the city south of market balance district that will amend a special use district in district 68d supervisor kim's district to balance the affordable housing and require the affordable housing if the balance is not maintained. amending the zoning map to establish the special zone my it came with other co-sponsors including supervisor mar. and receiving to commissioner antonini's comments i believe the affordable is between 90 and one hundred percent a m i i don't believe that rent control is included. with that, that's it >> thank you.

>> good afternoon board of appeals last night was a bit of a did you see i didn't (laughter) >> had 5 cases on the agenda 4 of them maybe a note for the planning commission. 11050 van ness street was back at the board of appeals briefly it's a 12 unit building on van ness street ground floor retail and the sequa analysis and determination 0 for that project as appealed to the planning commission and the board of supervisors and also in conjunction request was founded through the court that failed recently. the large project authorization i'm sorry skipped one. the building permit was appealed to the board of appeals and overwhelming they took the fifth

floor off then came back can be later and revised that determination to two setbacks of the fifth floor 10 feet on the front and rear. and there were two separate rehearing requests one from the project sponsor and one from liberate hill appellants. the mark theatre that was the other appellant didn't request another hearing and thought about appealing the request after some testimony the board denied both hearing requests so at least at the board of appeals that project is done. the next item 480 katrero avenue this is the one that katrero and mayor possess the sequa was appealed to the planning commission and board of supervisors and the sprushlth was with an an appeal to the

building permit the board of appeals already heard the appeal last year and depend that appeal and denied the appeal of the building on a 4 to zero vote and the next project 330 after the permit that didn't come from the planning commission but is of interest it's a project from the rec and park department. specifically with the bathroom on the site and there was a series of determinations and the permit was issued it was appealed it was a demolition permit part of the 2008 bond program to upgrade the bathroom program and the permit was to demolish the current bathroom that was 88 compliant.

there was some work done to the exterior of the building and the permit was appealed and a new determination was made that based on the current state after an h e.r. was done the tennis site was a historic resource but the building itself no longer was. the board of appeals seemed to favor an outcome leaning towards rehabilitating the existing building go as opposed to tearing it down for a modern structure they continued the item for 90 days and ask do the rec and park department to further look at that and to continue to work with the community because there was some community preference for a

rebuilding and smaller item 2529 post street was a variance in 2013 for the demolition and rebuild of restairs and decks that requested under e grossing ingress it was approved and that variance was appealed and the board of appeals denied it the building was the art it came to this commission in 2013, the dr didn't approve that it was an appeal 0 of the building permit and after some discussion it was denied. that was a long meeting >> thank you. commissioner sugaya >> you should start earlier. on valencia street do you

remember the number of units >> the original most removed the fifth floor and the revised motion, you know, restored a portion of the fifth floor and kept the same minimum of unit which is 12 so basically, their required to set it back in the front and rear without loss of revenues. >> so that means the affordable unit is triggered still i mean reinstated. >> yes. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move stone the general public comment commission. on items of interest to the

public that are within the subject matter jurisdictn. poovk. commission will be afforded when. the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may members of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes >> closed. general public comment is closed. . commissioners, that places you under item 9 at the 3571 sacramento street request for authorization. >> need one minute here per commissioners, i want to introduce you to another staff member she is a long term resident and graduated up state she's a former interim with the public works and worked for the city of alameda she's happy to

be back in san francisco. >> wonderful thank you. >> the project i'm sorry good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission. the project before you today is located on the 3571 sacramento street. this is part of the sacramento neighborhood are commercial district that requires a conditional use authorization permit for a hair salon. the ground floor commercial space is currently vacant and the former use was a retail store. a renovation plan will install four washing sinks and no exterior changes are proposed. this will be open daily from 7:00 a.m. actually 9:00 p.m. and

expect to have 75 customers per day >> that's not for you. >> the department has received one phone call about the concern for the parking need for the salon retail use and has a general concern for lack of parking in the neighborhood duce due to over building in the site and zoning requirements don't require parking to be required the departments recommendation is to approve the project. that concludes my presentation. the i'm sorry the applicant and the salon owners are here today and i'll be available for questions >> project sponsor would you like to make a presentation.

okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. oh. commissioner sugaya was that - >> yeah, i'll move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> commissioners, that places you under commissioner antonini. commissioner borden >> commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you your your receive calendar on market street units 22a and b the mandatory discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and others i'm with the staff the item is for mandatory discretionary review at the a merging on market

street. the project sponsor will merger two units resulting in one unit be reduced. the unit proposed for merging are a one bedroom and bath condo. the smaller unit was appraised at the 3 point millions plus and the larger unit at 8, $4 million. the appraise above the 4. million are demonstratively over financially not demonstratively unaffordable and subtract to subject review it is defined as a unit greater than

80 percent of the land values a of single families in san francisco as determined by the an appraisal made within 6 months to merge it states that the planning commission may increase the 10 percent of the unit if in the adjust is needed to conserve affordable housing. due to recent changes in the planning code effecting mergers i'm going to give you background this was filed on october 16, 2013, and reviewed against the planning code it explicit quality under the planning code because it didn't meet the majority of criteria and it was not demonstratively