manufacturers we're not talking about the one we're thinking about but we find vanilla windows are steel wrapped in vanilla and manufacturers can't make them it's only achieving a design goal but we'll say yes to our aluminum windows >> there's a reason that village starts to change color and that completely alters the consistent of the building. i know your pal system s are using a high system i'll be concerned we're staying on target the best we can given the

code, etc. >> thank you commissioner antonini >> yeah. i would agree with commissioner moore and certainly explore various options on windows. you know, i know there are some that are wood windows that have a high quality village quality on the outside but the main thing to weather properly a lot of times the aluminum have had problems >> i think this is a very good project and it's again, a large project to authorization. as was the case with two projects from true mark and we've continued one on 409 van ness those are come forward to

the western neighborhoods and all the sorts of things we've asked them to side kwartsdz substituting for rear yard and other things are r that have no significant impacts on the neighborhood around them that part is very good and again, the oversight affordability this is tier one that is different from tier two. the legislation from eastern neighborhoods describes the amount of affordable that's required of a project and their, of course, completely conformity and as commissioner moore suggested especially with the

change of elevation in the streets that's a tough thing to do this is as good as it gets i'll move to approve >> i'll second that motion. >> i want to clarify if the motion or ask staff to call out the roof-deck or removal of the roof-deck. >> if i may commissioner there are a number of references particularly to the roof-deck so as part of the motion take out and modify the motion according inevitable workman's comp windows. >> i don't have to add it to

the motion i want to add to the record we're concerned about that. >> thank you. commissioner johnson oh, >> i was going to ask commissioner antonini if you want this as part ever our motion. >> it would be it's been removed so therefore my motion includes removal of the roof-deck. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner johnson. >> that's great i was going to ask about the roof-deck i want to echo commissioners who've spoken this is a project that is in the eastern neighborhood plan? something that i think personally do frequent dog patch in this areaer it fits well with the closed traffic and the types of people that not to live in the neighborhood and a great design. i have a few questions and

comments. some of which may or may not end up in my motion. the first one is about the roof-deck i respect the ability of the project sponsors willingness to remove the roof-deck, however, unlike other roof-decks this is not one that is sort police said on top of the building with a roof-deck on top this is a i think an integral part of the plan. so i don't feel comfortable approving the project that had a roof-deck that that is a whole corner and not being there so if the project sponsors could speak to what is going to be there instead that might make me feel a little bit better. >> yes, thank you commissioner,

i appreciate our comment and, you know, your intent was to be very responsive to the neighborhood they've expressed concerns about the privacy that's why we removed the roof terrace where it is now it will be a typical roof situation so it will be a roof without the dock active landscaping that's currently shown on our plan. >> thank you. i mean again, i feel like if it was just a roof-deck more on the building schematic but i--i don't know to have nothing or to be determined i guess. i mean, i understand the compromise is made pretty recently like today so, i mean i

guess can you speak to what others option that might be considered what else date of birth considered even within the scope of the motion that it (inaudible) >> we have a i think you can see a green roof area that is remaining. >> okay. >> so we're going to take out the gathering area it will be beautiful for the people with the green roof view. so it will be a gathering area >> will there be any other area and the roof will be there we're not planning things now but certainly this is in the end. the green roof remains the furniture and the favors go away >> i know there was a rear yard

variance i believe. >> increase an exception and i - and and i'm trying to get a sense of what we're doing today, the roof is on how does that impact the rear yard what's the small business now. >> previously in our current set of plans we have approximately 95 hundred square feet of small business now with the removal of the roof terrace we have one thousand small business when is still above we're meeting the small business requirements it doesn't change with respect to the rear yard. >> okay. okay i won't bet you.

>> we're expanding the roof. >> i like grass the roof needs something on that it isn't a face of the building there need to be something there even if it's not a space of congregation it can't be nothing because people don't want to see a roof-deck. >> we've incorporated things into our project on the roof so definitely things we can do to utilize that saying that space number two, of the property line. >> next question this might also be for the project sponsor or is architect this guess a question i would have asked van ness to be continued they have the ground floor unit that would be commercial but their configured as residential and is that considered for your ground floor unit particularly the ones

along 22nd streets because that's retail. >> if you're talking about the walk up units. >> yes. >> we've also looked at those as preschooler residential spaces. >> okay. all right. and then just last point. since others have made mention of the comment from the ms. hester about the cc&rs again, i agree with commissioner moore we need the city attorney empty i don't know when you guys consider that as part of your building one of the things we've agreed on in terms of the community short term rentals is the private contracts and the ability to supercede legislation

so maybe you guys might consider that good for the marketing of our building bans the types of people you want to live there. i don't know that i would agree with having that in general thank you very much >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you. if i could ask for an opinion from the city attorney and sure deputy city attorney definitely under private contract the homeowners association can turn it into private agreement b that are more stringent but in terms of the commissions ability to commission any increased on short-term rentals we wouldn't advise there are the board has acted twice to prohibit short-term rentals both in the administrative code not within the purview the code this is

something with the planning commission commented open but the board will future leg let and there's not discretion in the legislation for the planning commission to further look at the short term rentals. and we'll see you know how this develops but at this point there are two pieces of legislation and in effect that prohibit short-term rentals, and, secondly, there would be a condition, you know, it would behove the commission to find something different from other residential buildings that warrant a particular condition >> thank you commissioner sugaya. >> yes. on that point just to make clear ambassador short-term rentals less than thirty days

are currently prohibited in the city unless someone comes and asks for a bed-and-breakfast type of permit that's not allowed in every zoning district anyway. so at the moment we know there is pending legislation before the board of supervisors that will alter some of that but i think it's for the public's sake should make clear that short term rentals are currently prohibited in the city of san francisco and employed to this at the moments until september >> thank you commissioner sugaya that's helpful i want to echo the comments of commissioner moore he do think that one extra benefit of having

more two bedroom units up 060 percent of the two bedroom units there are two bedroom b m r it's a challenge often larger householders is are looking for larger householders and only allowed to rent and one bedroom to meet their needs and also the question of the fear of hoteltion doesn't say w you have to be the primary resident there's no proposal on the table that looks like full-time rental to tourist. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you sorry really quickly i kind of ended my comments before i made the suggested change to the motion

i'd like to have a condition that we receive an update on the small business on level 5 lou of the roof-deck as a condition of approval. >> that is okay. if just a written report to the commission only a special session. >> i was going to do ask that seem question do you want on updated plan sent to you. >> yeah. a written plan not a hearing. >> commissioner moore >> i'd like to say it's not just planting grass a high skilled landscape design so it will have a high design there will be a plan and fun to see it. so i'll support as a 1ek9 motion that be incorporated >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i made the motion and

supportive of the compromise that is with the neighborhood donates a very nice locking small business on the deck and would have been as a couple of commissioners said it fit in nicely other than the same level of the same housing but that's what the motion is and what we're going to be voting on. >> i second it seeing the terrace changes. >> very good. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. i think true mark come down too early. >> commissioners on that motion and second to approve with conditions as amended to remove the references to a roof-deck and for a for the kwirgsz commission to receive a written update. commissioner antonini. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong p commissioner president wu.

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> the commission will take a 15 minute break. >> and welcome back to the planning commission regular hearing for thursday, august 14, 2014. commissioners we left off under our regular calendar and will be talking up 1213 abc and for those causatises also known as moscone center please notice the admiring ends on june 16, 2014, it public comment may not be

respond to in writing case numbers 13 e k r v and x under the california quality act determination for consideration of general plan referral and request for variances >> commissioner moore. >> the city attorney has advised that i ask for recusal on o this my decade employment may invoke the impression tailors or there's a conflict of interest. >> motion inform recuse. >> on that motion to rouse commissioner moore. commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu.

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes sxhoerp you are recused >> good afternoon commissioner president wu i'm elizabeth from the environmental division from the planning department's i'm joined with other and in addition elizabeth is here for the downtown general referral. evidence code lopez the city architect from the pksz is here to rent the project sponsor it's a final environmental impact report for the moscone street project a copy of the draft eir certification is before you perturbed u pushed on april 18th the public comment period closed and the documents was described on july 31st pr subsequent to

the public comments those comments were farther to you and additional comments one for the support of the carrying out of the measures and the eir and the analysis of the pedestrian impacts is deficit because they're received after the publication we are noting were not able to pit them in their adequately addressed in the admiring the comments didn't perpetrate any changes or alter conclusions therefore recirculation of the environmental impact report is not required. so i'd like to address one not able change as you recall the claugs evaluations result in a

significant environmental impact report related to children's parks. since publication the draft eir he project sponsor has made refinements on the muscone south part you saw the changes last month this will reluctance the shadow on the children's garden in late spring with the revised design the proposed design will have no significant changes. the qualification of the shadows not detected until after the public comment it shows the corrected calculations. for the 4 small businesses. that discussed in the eir the numeral of the theoretical available sunlight and the

shadow square feet hours was erroneous but the errors of the shadowing are correct the draft was for informational purposes no small business is subject to the planning code will be effected. the conclusions regarding shadow impacts and the final eir were not effected. for all other projects as analyzed in the draft eir the changes don't effect the draft eir. those changes reflected in the document you have before you and those are the in final eir we request you adapt the eir and the procedures for which the eir was prepared comply with sequa the sequa guidelines that concludes my presentation. unless the commission members

have any questions >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm assistant director of planning together those constitute the project for the muscone on howard between 3 and fourth street. since the commission heard the physical aspects of the will project i'll focus on the key attributes once i've concluded my presentation the mucus folks will have a presentation. san francisco's primary meeting facility the proposed project will increase the mucus center through 3 areas of expansion first, it will maximize the space on mucus north and south the primary goal this will be

achieved by low grading spaces of the exhibition halls it's located at mucus south antes at 2 hundred and 60 thousand square feet it will create 5 hundred and 50 exhibition space below grade. second the project includes an above grade of the ballroom. the combining of those structures will result in one facility and above grade the mucus south and ballroom will expand by 2 hundred and 77 percentage to two hundred and 68 thousand square feet. third the project is a minimal of muscone north the expansion has been scaled back and an existing lobby to meeting rooms near the pedestrian bridge close

to howard street the north expansion will adds 8 thousand square feet of the area. the project also includes two pedestrian bridges located above howard street framing in the main conference center brown the north and south building the eastern bridge will be partially enclosed and the pedestrians will be moving between the public walkway and improving the small businesses on the north and south blocks it will be designed to function as an expansion of the small businesses and touch on the children's parks it includes

significant public realm improvements adjacent to the site and howard will have a pickup and drop off facility. slafrl third street will be improved of the off street area it will help to break up the streets and increase the activities located within the interior of the lot and create an small business in the form of a terrace that is occupant by restaurant at the yerba buena gardens. the project will include significant improvements as to the children's garden south of how are you. in addition to the eir there are several luldz the adaptation of the finding pursuant to sequa

and the planning section from the ground floor currents and this motion will need to be amended to correct the square feet hours of shadow as discussed previously by elizabeth and lastly you'll having be asked to look at sidewalk go width changes and changes to properties the zoning administer will be asked to act on the planning code over the projects on howard street and the section to allow some non-active use on the mucus south and los allow the transparency long howard street and to allow an off street opening of greater than 15 feet as guidance with the section it must meet certainty sections of

the code. the department has reviewed the exceptions as described in the draft section and impact the department buildings the exceptions are warranted and meets the code performer as it relates to the general referral the project meets the goals and objectives of the goals to increasing the small businesses to visitor and to improve the quality design we alameda recommend you approve the project i'm going to turn it over to joseph president and ceo of sf travel >> thank you. >> hello and good afternoon the opportunity to be here i'm authentic actually after many years of planning it's an unparalleled relationship with

when you have a public and private sector to come together it's really a positive step forward. as you know traveling and tourism is a major generate our of spending the mucus center generates a quarter of that spend the job creations and the engine of the mucus center that is has been generating >> why expand. the mucus center is one of the most effective centers in the country the clients are needing more space and anymore flexible space when conference centers we are built there's a lot of walls so many of the important pushing pursues of green underground conditions we're not necessarily

with this expansion and improvement looking for bigger conferences our larger conferences are what the community wants but allows us to do back to back conferences smaller conferences instead of having dark days we can have a smaller conference in mucus west. the benefits will create about 34 hundred construction jobs and about 35 hundred permanent jobs. an additional $20 million in hotel tax revenue generated out of the project and continue to be a major economic development force for the city and county of san francisco and region of san francisco. the objectives of this project are to maximize the economic impact by attracting the clients and keeping the clients what we we already have. we want to maintain c