that item passes >> the item passes next. >> item 9 interrogation of new items. >> colleagues, any new items for introduction. okay how about open this up for public comment for a slit second because no one is here seeing none, public comment is closed. and go on >> 10 general public comment. >> any member of the public utilities seeing none, public comment is closed. and our last item >> adjournment. >> thank you we're

>> welcome to the san francisco budget & finance committee regular meeting for thursday, april 24, 2014. please be advised that the commission does not permit outbursts of any kind please silence all electronic devices. that may sound off and when speaking before the commission please state your name for the record if you care to. commissioner president wu. commissioner fong. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. sxhefg is expected and commissioner sugaya is going to be absent. item one is for continuance at 700 cabrillo street is for may 15, 2014. item 2545 ash beggar street

requests for condominium conversion for may 15, 2014. items 3 a and b for 395 avenue request for condominium conversion is for september 4, 2014. item 4924 second street is proposed for indefinite continuance. is there any public comment on that item on items for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> would like information why the continuance for item 1, 2, 3 particularly number 3 that's been continued a few times.

>> good afternoon david lindsey i, give you information on items one and two this sponsor failed to pick up a poster and my colleague will explain items 3 a and b organization christina. the environmental portion of the application is being reviewed and they've given us an approximate four months so we'll continue out until september >> thank you it seems like it would be continued and it's been continued and continued. >> i'm sorry we did an environmental review we're reviewing the project for an additional exemption and my understanding is a class 32.

>> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> move forward to continue as proposed. >> second. >> on that motion. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you under consent calendar consent calendar, are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 5 case c at the 3201 cattle street requests for conditional

use authorization and the next on octavia street is for conditional use authorization. let me see if that's a speaker card >> is there any public comment on that item on the consent calendar seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner fong. >> move to approve item 5 and 6. >> second. >> on the motion to approve the items. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner fong. and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and under commission matters draft minutes for april 3rd and 5 >> any public comment on the draft minutes seeing none,

public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> move to approve draft minutes. >> second. >> on that motion for the draft minutes 2014 commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on 8 commissioners, comments or questions >> commissioner antonini. >> a few meetings in the last couple of weeks i attended a neighborhood meeting larts on mission for a future project. i met with the project sponsor in regards to a project 2198 market last week and met with the project sponsor for future

projects that are flag analysis and on 1 and mission street and finally, i visited the dr requester for the dr that's filed against one one one ashbury on our calendar for consideration in the near future. the other item i want to ask about making comments. i realize we have a ballot issue but motive question is not about a position on the ballot 80 but to inform the public on the existing height limits on the waterfront it's property that

are inland most are port properties but if we can have an forgive presentation it would be something that the general public would find informative about the height limits where they came from >> commissioner borden. >> the speaking of the water front i know the warriors brought a site have they filed a petition. >> i was going to address that. >> perfect. >> commissioner moore. >> i see a lot of construction activity in on residential neighborhoods that's a positive sign sometimes, i only one should as to whether 0 those varies activities have filed for the proper permitting i question that because the developers and

bbldz in the city that are doing the residential remodeling they have their permits somewhere on the construction site maybe not knowing how it worked but that's not happening it's hard to trace. has that a permit or not. going to the website is one way but i don't police activities i'd like to have a discussion with dbi to put flags on things to ask questions, etc. i'm observing in my own vicinity something that requires a variance despite the nature of the project on the other hand, since i don't see the permits posted on the building i assume the construction activities that are going on in the building

have not vetted properly so i'm trying to make sense of this for the commission to schedule a joint meeting with dbi and talk about this. among other things which we might have in common. >> okay. thank you. >> my apologizes through the chair if he could go back to the items for continuance if item 3 b the variance also proposed for september 20th. >> as acting zoning administrator i'll continue that. >> commissions that places you under directors announcements. >> good afternoon, commissions are couple of announcements i want to introduce you to mr.

kelly he who's the new director of the planning and he's been here 2 1/2 weeks he is coming from portland where he had his own firm and in berkley for nine hundred among other things he spent time with the rec and park i've known gil and we're frankly glad to have him as part of our team. >> thank you welcome. >> welcome. >> welcome. welcome >> with respect to of the warriors proposal the announcement was a maid in week the warriors are in the process of purposing the sales force property in mission bay to build the arena and the proposal will be to build the arena

approximately 15 thousand seat arena and the exact amount is as you recall a sales force had about $2 million square feet i'm not sure how much the warriors will propose it's for the scoping for the plan. therefore the entitlement process is similar to mission bay there will be likely a chance change to the ocii. and under our arrangement that started about a year ago the planning department is actually doing the environmental reviews for the redevelopment agency. we're working to scope that out right now and as well as we're working with them under contract also on the design needs for the

ocii so the vice president will be at the table. the commissions role will not be the normal entitlement paroling role because that's in the mission bay plan but the office allocation you'll see that in the redevelopment areas and we'll be happy to bring the project to you on, on informational basis as the work precedes. no former application filed yet but they haven't even scoped with the full range of the project at this point so when it becomes better defined i'm happy to work with the president and figure out when to come to talk about the scope of the project. you may recall the sales force had about 14 acres and it's

smaller part of the 14 acres were under an agreement with ucsf so this doesn't include the entire 14 acres but runs to the terrace boulevard so it includes the biggest single piece of the site. with respect to commissioner antonini s comment on the waterfront we're happy to share the information which that includes the waterfront portion which is controlled and not controlled on the water in front that announcement will be coming in the next few weeks >> commissioner moore. >> i know it's not scheduled as a discussion item but i want to ask some of the urban ideas relative to the sales force

headquarter will resolve many of 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