the big connections we're looking for i hope that sensitivity which you all brought to the discussion can be transferred and adapted to how we look at this large building. >> i appreciate this comment we're looking forward to working on that site as a way to make it pedestrian friendly. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> seems like on the mission bay projects in the past commission they've approved the design as a matter of the hearing i'm not sure f this is true of the warrior project. >> the way it works you approve i don't understand the history of the site but only on office monetary because of the prop m allocation. the department will be at the table and we'll come her to update you and get our comments

>> thank you. >> commissioners, if nothing further the past event of the board of supervisors there's no update and no prehistoric commission meeting. >> aaron star supervisor tang's small business month wasn't was the commissions recommendation to make it an annual affair if you recall the commission voted unanimously to approve this. this week's committee meeting the supervisor yee's medical cannabis dispensary recreations that would require a conditional use authorization for a mc d in the district this commission

heard this on april 4th and approved it that the board of supervisors approve the ordinance. there's a little public comment and the land use voted to send it to the full board with a positive recommendations. at last week's board of supervisors hearing supervisor wiener's castro project passed and this week's is another ordinance passed reading from as well and authorized of last week the mayor had a ceremony for supervisor chiu's and supervisor wiener's ordinances to legalize the assessor dwelling units those will be effective on may 19th. last week, we had two introductions supervisor kim's

planning code ordinance to inspect one 07 walker building as a category that building a contributor under planning code earlier 11 and we had the planning code amendment to deal with air b and b rentals the short-term rentals foe this is the administrative code for the exception of the prohibition to create registry for tracking short-term residentials and to establish a residential fee. the amendment clarifies the short-term rentals will not change the unit type as

residential you'll here this in 90 days no ordinances this washington, d.c. week at the board that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> commissioners, if there's nothing fallout general public comment snooed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission. of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. there are not speaker cards any general public comment public comment? >> welcome mr. kelly. again, i'd like to put into our information regarding the water you front properties there are

under a federally mandated use of 1950 lands 3 can't be transferred permanently into other than public use those are swamp lands that exist from our waterfront to montana street this is liquid if i had land and not just in terms of predetermined by the vice president functions. there is an adapted your honor, adapted element that's been go forward it is time you enforced what you already enacted thank you very much >> thank you. is there further general public comment. okay. seeing none general public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places you under our regular calendars we're going to call 3 items

together first 11 is the san francisco 2004 and 2005 of the economical impact report the public comment of the revised portion was from december to february 18, 2014, the commission will take public comment, however, the revised portions closed any comments received today including orallyly or in writing will not be responded to in writing. item 12 a and b adapting sequa vnthsdz and consideration of the adaptation of the general plan >> good afternoon commissioner

president wu i'm steven smith from the mr. vice president. the item before you is the certification of the environmental impact report or eir of the housing element it was prepared for the quality act through sequa. i'm sure you're aware of the city previously reviewed the elements in the eir which the commission certified the board of supervisors deposited it from the plan. subsequently it was challenged in san francisco supreme court the supreme court found it compiled with the sequa and the cities recreation of those alternatives to the sequa findings. the court ordered the consideration of reapprovals. the directive recalibrated the

section because the court upheld the portions of the eir other sections were not circulated because no consortiums. so for the revised eir was 60 days and included a public hearing on january 23rd, 2014. in accordance with the request of the planning commissions the document addresses the eir comments was published on april 10, 2014. through the revitalization of the alternative sections no changes in the original draft of the eir rather the further revisions in responds to the comments the comments received

during the public review didn't warrant any new changes but a few corrects to the response document. the eir before the planning commission economists of the draft eir published in june needing the comments and responses on the drafted eir in mayor 2011 and the responses to comments prepared for that section. although the eir addresses the 2004 and 2011 elements the project sponsor is recommending. the adaptation. the eir found that the implementation what result in ushering affordable impact on transit that is not below the significant level therefore pursuant to sequa should the

commission choose to adapt the elements. part of the adaptation sequa is before you in those items and the items that follow. in conclusion, we ask you adapt this that certifies the report is adequate and accurate and in which the final provisions comply with the sequa and the chapter code. that concludes my presentation unless the commission has questions >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners planning department staff with the citywide division and i recommended the housing element and the related sequa findings two actions adapting the sequa finding and amending the housing

element. in march of 2011 the department staff present this to the commission and the board of supervisors ultimately approved, however, as my colleague steven smith said the supreme court has asked the housing eir to be set aside and the housing authority element and reconsider those actions. in response to the courts riling an ultimate analysis was done. the commission held a comment section and the environmental staff responded to the comments on the alternative on april 13th are the revised analysis the department continues to remedy

the alternative and this is not for changes. the department reviewed the revised chapter 7 alternatives and said that the revision do not meet the city's current housing need at all at income levels of the character of the diverse san francisco neighborhoods. the project could have a historic impact but it didn't reflect the city's historic resources. in addition alternative a didn't contain policies when density or the use of parking requirements to the housing as well as the policies in the 2009 element. the cost of housing is a significant issue facing san

francisco and likewise alternative b is regarding the objectives and doesn't allow for reduced parking requirements to the same degree as the 2009 element. in addition alternative c are more aggressive and this alternative encourages the housing near transit lines for the housing envelope and provides for easier relief for the bulk and height and the need to maintain the existing neighborhood character is not effected. finally unlike the objectives in the 2009 elements update resulted from public outreach and comment the planning department in corporation cooperation with the mayor's

office of housing and other agencies worked closely with the stakeholders and community members. a 15 member advisory body was condone on the development and refinest of the programs. the department hosted industries meeting of special interest housing groups and over thirty workshops some in the varies districts of city and hosted several hearings. for those reasons that are more thoroughly explained in the sequa finding the department continues to remedy the 2009 housing element for the general plan. again those are the same policies the commission adapted in 2011. based on the comments that the environmental planning heard you may hear the comments from the

housing density changes in the rh1 and other zoning district. adapting the 2009 element helps with the neighborhood character by not calling for changes in the rh1 or other zoning districts. instead the housing element talks about the tools that can be used to address residential regulations such a secondary unit and density and parking projects. the changes are for neighborhood support and other policies advise those must be consistent with the neighborhood characters. there were responds regarding rh1 and other zoning districts and that is in our pact packet.

we recommend a resolution adapting the 2009 element confirms our dedication to meeting california housing particularly as it pertains to the housing needs at all levels and it continues our eligibility for the requests for the affordable housing requests. thank you for your consideration and staff is available for questions >> thank you. okay. let's open this up for public comment for. i have one speaker card.

>> so soon thank you speaking for san francisco storm. first of all, i'd like to indirect you to the submission by catherine in response to the state court of appeals not the supreme court but the higher court the city advance alternative scenarios problematic scenarios that can deal with the mandate as to need, cost and diversity of the housing population which this department has described is 80 percent of the citizens of this city that are go forward in the process before you. i have submitted and i again will submit on february 18th a relevant very detailed significant set of alternatives that have not been commented

upon regard our finding and this is not proper in this state. i refer you to particularly to the states rather the city's obligation of the necessary tools to do a proper analysis in confirming it review to the free market into the mist of the thought oversupply of high-end you housing with 50 thousand high-end housing that's before you have you have raised the inatlantic costs of public goods that mandated the public needs of this city and raised the cost of land and services and the ability to mitigate in an earthquake disaster of high proposition in advance that could occur by federal analysis within 6 years it's not there.

and this is means you preceded no bad faith. the state allows a certain tolerance an interpretation of state laws you've aviating exceed that and therefore i put before you have 2 chose one you can anticipate an appeal to the state appeal that allows you to look at other scenarios that is not contained in the process through other means other venues that obviously the faith less continue or stop those proceedings and start through the required and continue through an effective or

objective venue and the a lot things you've received >> thank you. any is there any public comment. >> good afternoon. i'm kathy rep san franciscans for liveable neighborhoods on behalf of that group we objective to the certification of the final eir and prop the sequa finding and the adaptation of the recommendation and the reading is set forth in our comment and another letter before i get to those reading why the findings are inclusivey this is you're only chance to change the language because under the charter you accepted it 0 to the board of supervisors they can acknowledge vote yes or no on the packet so, please consider

the alternatives signatures eliminating japantown from policy 102 and the projection in the eir you're going to make 25 thousand more units so 25 you don't need japantown and there's no plans to expending expand the capacity. also in policy 1 that .2 not unlimited planning but add a sentence the limitations shall be limited in the plans otherwise you have no transparency and this is optional through the planning period 2014. also policy 1.2 text should be should be changed not only for the height and bulky have this

language if you should say in rh1 and two the density limits as well as the bulk patterns should be maintained. as to policy 1.4 initiating the plans precedes through the budgetary process when a process you should change that language to say the process should be initialed by the publicly notice of the planning commission that discloses the planning process and that it decedents the scope and the notice of the proposed initiation should be mailed to each organization. and the next policy should be changed to state that new developments are allocations in

cc&rs should i'd like to turn in the letter for example, the reduced land use certification still fails to state the - >> thank you your time is up. >> may i hand you my letter and have a copy stamped received by any chance. thank you very much here's the original copy >> thank you is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm rose jordan park improvement association i want to repeat with more emphasis on the fact that the

2009 housing element maybe afforded more public input but the input sometimes is sometimes is staged speak for itself in organization areas so the wording that katherine expressed that needs to be changed the in housing element as she provided to i have the semiimplied version that will be passed out madam secretary some things are dollary but the board of supervisors is only an up and down vote and it's important this language gets put in for the neighborhoods. thank you >> thank you is there any additional public comment?

>> good afternoon. i'm robert president of the marilyn park neighborhood. i support the last two speakers and with respect to the park being an rh1 zoned the policy should be changed for the rh1 and two as well as the bulk patterns should maintain the neighborhood character and the final eir doesn't contain those. this will have an impact on the rh1 and two neighborhoods from the policy language that supports more than one or two units from the rh1 or two parcel >> thank you. >> thank you is there any public comment?

>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm karen i'm also a member of the mary lemon park improvement club i support the prior speaker. thank you >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> i've got a count down oh, well. good afternoon, commissioners jude berkowitz coalition for the san francisco neighborhoods under policy 102 japantown should be deleted and the response to comments admits on

with the completion of the ethics strategies there's no plans to increase the housing capacity in japantown. the final eir didn't accurately consider this feasible alternative and area plans should be limited to the areas of the 2009 to the 2014 underlines that are objectives the following statements should be added quote notwithstanding the for going the area and community plans shall be limited to those areas specifically identified in policy 1.2 unquote the final eir doesn't consider the feasible alternative. policy 102 text should be changed to state in areas in

revolver and two the density limit heights should be maintained and the final eir didn't accurately consider this feasible alternative. the second to last sentence in policy 11.2 text relating recommending to cc&rs should be stating that new additions to existing structures in neighborhoods that have neighborhood specific cc&rs and design guidelines should conform with the cc&rs guidelines and quote the analysis is still lacking factual support and evades the comments based on the 1990 element that district groekt growth for transit and expected to capitalized.

the revised alternative analysis failed to explain the growth that under alternative a is relating it's period throughout the city. both those elements were also subject to all area plans. thank you. appreciate our time >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm sarah. i'm the deputy director of spur. it's nice to see you but not nice to see you on this item. i was a nebraska member of the affiliation person committee that your staff discussed earlier we met i don't remember what you said 2009 when we started. so it's been many, many, many years we've been having a dialog will be the housing element the

majority of the people on that particular commission are not here anywhere they're not in the room. i think the reason why we're simile exhausted we negotiated this housing element death. i was here in 2011 i don't like everything in the housing element but doesn't sue the city to get everything. it's very, very unfortunate to use the law in this manner and it's upsetting to me i find is incredibly upsetting i am here to talk about the housing element i urge you to adapt it and not change a single word