thursday september 18, 2014. i would like to remind members of the audio yents -- audience, the commission does not tolerate any outburst at this time. and please turn off cell phones. roll: commissioner president wu, antonini, hillis, johnson, moore, and richards. here. we do expect vice-president fong. >> item one for continuance. item 1: 2014.0377c j. speirs; 4155 575-91066 2861-2865 san bruno avenue - east side between wayland street and woolsey street, lot 022 in assessor's block 5457 - request for conditional

use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 711.36 and 317, to allow the residential conversion of two dwelling units at the second floor to two office spaces business or personal servicee within a nc-2 neighborhood commercial, small scalee zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. the project includes a third and fourth floor vertical addition to add two new dwelling units. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san fransco administrative sf 11234 it's proposeded to continuance to october, 2014. item 2: 2012.0678e!kuvx e. watty; 4155 558-66200 19-25 mason street aka 2-16 turk streett - northwest corner of mason and turk streetslots 002, 005, 006 in assessor's block 0340 - request for determination of compliance pursuant to planning code section 309, with exceptions to the requirements for "rear yard" section 1344, "reduction of ground-level wind currents in c-3 districts" section 1488, and "residential accessory parking" section 151.11fff. the proposed project would remove an existing surface parking lot and construct a new, 12-story, 112,600 gsf, mixed-use building, with 109 dwelling units, 52 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 2,400 sf of ground-floor retail space. the project site is located within the c-3-g downtown generall zoning district and 120-x height and bulk district. continued from regular meeting of august 14, 20144 proposed for indefinite continuancee 2b. 2012.0678e!kuvx e. watty; 4155 558-66200 19-25 mason street aka 2-16

turk streett - northwest corner of mason and turk streets; lots 002, 005, 006 in assessor's block 0340 - request for variances, pursuant to planning code section 140, for dwelling unit exposure for 19 of the 109 units. the proposed project would remove an existing surface parking lot and construct a new, 12-story, 112,600 gsf, mixed-use building, with 109 dwelling units, 52 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 2,400 sf of ground-floor retail space. the project site is located within the c-3-g downtown genell zoning district and 120-x height and bulk sf 21234 and item 3. item 3: 2013.1668t a. starr; 4155 558-63622 bona fide eating place - planning commission consideration of an ordinance [bf 131064] amending the planning code to expand the definition of "bona fide eating place" to include a definition based on food sales per occupant and modifying the definition of a bar to include establishments with an abc license type 47 that are not bona fide eating places; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1. preliminary recommendation: adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications continued from regular meeting of june 19, sf 31234 proposed for continuance and no. 4 has been withdrawn. item 4: 2013.1620d k. burns; 4155 575-91122 812 814 green street - north side of green street, between mason and taylor streets; lot 010 in assessor's block 0119 - mandatory discretionary review, pursuant to planning code section 3177ee, of building permit application no. 2013.11.06.1249, proposing to make interior modifications to merge two

dwelling units into one unit, resulting in the elimination of one unit in an existing three unit building within a rm-2 residential-mixed, moderate densityy zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative sf 41234 thank you, any other items proposed for continuance. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini? move item 1 and 2 and 3, and no. four is withdrawn. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner antonini, johnson, richards, johnson, moore, wu. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. zoning administrator for the record on item 2 b continue that for an indefinite continuance as well. >> thank you. commisoners, moving to your consent calendar, all matters listed under are considered to be routine by the planning commission and maybe acted on by a single roll call. there is no second discussion of these items unless they are pulled and they will be removed and considered as a separate item. item 5, item 5: 2012.0059c o. masry; 4155 575-91166 431 balboa street - along the south side of balboa street, between 5th and 6th avenues, lot 047 in assessor's block 1639 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 711.83 and 303 to allow a macro wireless telecommunications services wtss facility operated by at&t mobility. the proposed macro wts facility would feature nine 99 panel antennas screened by a combination of faux elements vent pipes, rooftop mechanical screens, and a faux decorative parapet extensionn, on the roof of an existing three-story mixed-use building. related

electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in a ground floor room. the facility is proposed on a location preference 5 site mixed-use building in a high-density districtt within a nc-2 neighborhood commercial, small-scalee zoning district, and 40-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative code. preliminary recommendation: approve with item 5, sf 51234 and item 6. item 6: 2014.1240t a. starr; 4155 558-63622 amendments to the planning code's definition of residential unit and residential conversion requirements [board file no. 140775] - ordinance amending the planning code to amend the definition of residential unit and clarify the requirements for a residential conversion of a residential hotel unit regulated under administrative code, chapter 41; making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. preliminary recommendation: adopt a recommendation for approval item 6: 2014.1240t a. starr; 4155 558-63622 amendments to the planning code's definition of residential unit and residential conversion requirements [board file no. 140775] - ordinance amending the planning code to amend the definition of residential unit and clarify the requirements for a residential conversion of a residential hotel unit regulated under administrative code, chapter 41; making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code,

section 101.1. preliminary recommendation: adopt a recommendation for approval # 1234 requirement in ordinance of planning code. i have several speakers cards in opposition to item 5. i will just assume to pull that off consent and have that placed at the beginning of the regular calendar? >> yes. please. >> commissioner moore? i would like to ask item 6 to be removed so the public can hear the explanation of what is entailed for this piece. i have got phone calls. so we'll just take a few minutes to have it on the record. >> very good. commission matters item 7. draft minutes? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> move to approve draft minutes? >> second. >> on that motion. commissioner antonini, hillis, johnson, moore, richard, fong and wu. so moved, that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on item 8, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, i was able to go see a preview of the renovated masonic auditorium that had been before us and it was approved as you know and it was very well done as mentioned in our discussions. most of it is to improve the facity and they did make it more functional. the other item i wanted to mention. i hope many of you have been able to watch ken burns series on pbs. i have seen it the last four nights and i think it's extremely well done from the history i have read seems to be very accurate and they don't hesitate to mention the times when these individuals did things that might not have been the best or might not have been the best decisions. in this case it is very important in the formation of the america we know today, the period of time characterized by the both the president at teddy theodore roosevelt and franklin roosevelt and

eleanor rose osevelt is featured and my second, the president theodore roosevelt, the "it not the critique that counts" it's he's saying the man in tharena, the one who is actually doing the deeds and risking his life and doing the best he can to do good is the one who really should get the credit. not the person who just criticizes but offers constructive criticism and being placed in the jobs being by as he said the man in the arena. i think it's one of my favorite quotes and fitting end to the second episodes. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner dr. roscoe m. >>commissioner kathrin moore: i would like to ask the representative who are

now presenting the academy of arts to give an update on the academy. i believe that update is a little thin relative to the detail many of us have spent on it over the years. i do think the public as well as the commission deserves a slightly more detailed update because we have asked for detail questions. the second point is in yesterday's e-mail i received a wonderful copy of san francisco heritage with a draft on the cultural history of the city. it takes like snapshots of particular events and buildings and places. i understand historic preservation had a presentation by heritage. i am wondering if we can have a similar presentation? because ultimately we at least should know what -- while it does

not influence what we do, it gives us a broader understanding of the larger issues which tie it altogether. would you consider that to be possible, director? >> absolutely. we can work with the chair to make that happen. >> thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner richards? >> i was surprised to receive these documents from the heritage in the mail. we look at lands and the building and maybe what happened there, but from a cultural point of view we have a little bit of catching up to do. i know the gay and lesbian adopted and the african american and i know there is a latino context statement made. the part of what makes san francisco is the social and cultural

heritage that we have. case in point, if you go online and look at our book on living history, some of the things that have been publicized around changes in the social and cultural heritage started with the pipe piper bar and you could probably speak to that. if we have the pipe piper and the tonga room go away, what is san francisco going to look like. we that had eagle go away which is the bar but came back and i know sam owe is gone and if you ever read tails of the city. i really think that getting our arms around for these kind of businesses is

good. and one of the pamphlets about the strategy to come in. that's why i would like them to also come to the commission. the second thing i asked director ram and staff if they can produce a performa in the pipeline report for the housing coming online. we keep referring to the income levels of moderate housing and low income, lower than 80. we've had some discussion around what nd of bmr units they are going to be and the gadget in the modern income and produced about a quarter of what we need. a lower income on 60 percent and way above about 200 percent. i asked kror -- director ram if he can look at beyond 2014 in hunters point and park merced to give

us an idea of what those projects would like like online. can we move those numbers? or would we have the second definition of receiving that. my last point is i struggle with the last two meetings with definition of family housing. i came across on at twitter what was retweeted by san francisco times, the first republic luxury home index. it opened my eyes to what we are dealing with. the barometer is a home valid at $3 million and 300-3000 or more square feet. from my lens moving forward i'm going to call it a luxury house. anything less than that would be called family house.

establishing what family housing would be and a luxury family house. that's the lens i'm looking at. if you want to look at the luxury home index online. thank you. >> commissioner johnson? >> thank you very much. my first point i was thinking about this since our first meeting and would like to request with starting with a presentation from sf mta. i would like to see how starting with at least how they are going to phase in the transportation improvements particularly in the eastern neighborhood plans and eventually what will encompass the new central soma plan. there is a lot of mass of what the future state will look like, future, future. i want to understand what this phase is going to look like and how they are actually measuring when one phase is completed and when you need to move it to the next phase in terms of

density in various muni lines. i would like to have a presentation on that and potentially maybe we can move to a joint meeting or another method of coordination and the planning department and sf mta. my second one is so minor. i almost hate myself for saying it. i noticed in the last few hears when we had dr's when it came time to comment, oftentimes individuals who technically are part of the project sponsor team, either they are co-owner of the property or related or a very close relation would come up for comment and be confused as to why they couldn't speak because they should have been considered part of the project sponsor team. you are always going to be people who are unfamiliar with how the planning commission works. we are going to have to deal

with that, but i think what we can do to make it easier in our agendas to have standard language underneath the regular cal endar that talks about the project sponsor team includes: and one says the sponsor or their designee. i would like to add another clause to clarify who is also part of the sponsor team, some sort of clarifying language i think that would be helpful. i wasn't going to say it the first couple of times but then it happened a few more times and i want people to understand when they can make comment and when they can be communicating with. >> thank you. i think that's something we can work on with the commission secretary. >> if there is nothing

further we can move on but to quickly respond commissioner johnson. the historic preservation commission yesterday adopted new rules as part of their procedure. they are working with staff on a handout that would go along with how to make a public presentation and what to expect. maybe we can adopt something similar for the planning commission that could be a part of applications that go out to. >> that would be great. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further we can move on to department matters, item 9. >> thank you. there is two things. we are on track for the release of the draft eir in november which has been the date that we've been working for the last few months. second,

i want to let you know that we are working with the economic of work and development the flower matter. there has been a lot in the media and discussion around the community. there is no architect design proposed but there is a plan to fully maintain a flower mart. further the mayor has offered the development to ensure the flower market is on remaining on-site. they haven't applied for their preliminary plan yet. we will work with them to ensure the flower matter does in fact stay on site. we anticipate that it's physically possible to let them do that. we will let you know as the applications come in. that

concludes my presentation. happy to take any questions. city clerk: commissioners item 106789 review of attendance. >> good afternoon, i'm here to give you an update. this week there is only one action item to report but it is a substantial one. the land use committee heard thinks short-term rental ordinance. you heard this on august 7th. at that time you recommended approval with 16 maemdz amendments to be made to the ordinance. these were delivered to the board and as a land use land department exercised a goal to create a legal avenue for this use and thanked the supervisor for taking on this challenging issue. at the same time the director addressed the need to focus on three key changes . first ensuring the system is

not abused by creating real limits by the number of days a unit can be rented. second, a dedicated budget for staff and third, establishing limits for hosted units. after opening remarks from the supervisors, there were about seven 7 hours of public comment. and a representative from one of the hosting platforms came to the hear and addressed the board. this is what one commission suggested at your hearing. as part of the board hearing there were several recommendations and amendments. eight amendments that a person on the registry can only have one permanent residence and there would be a suspension of your ability to participate in the registry if you have a code violation at the address until the violation is cured. posting a ballot registration would be a violation.

anybody who participates in a registry would need a valid business registration. hosting platforms shal maintain the record of tax payments and not maintaining these records would be a violation by the platform. hosting platforms could respond to these alleged violations at some administrative hearing and those were the amendments introduced by supervisors chiu. supervisor ferrell who was not at the meeting amended the ordinance to require the tenant to mail to the owner when they get on our registry. if a tenant were to apply for the registry, the property owner would be identified. the homeowner's association would be

any interested party eligible to sue only if there is a homeowners association associated with the unit. and to require residency for 265 days every year, not just on the year prior to getting on the registry. at the discussion after the end of public comment, supervisor said she wanted to create a 90 -day limit for hosted and non-hosted units and she was interested in supporting the program and wanted to hear more about how dbi's codes come into play and want dbi land use at the next hearing and would take more time for outstanding questions and 16 modification request by this commission. then supervisor cohen

recommended a continuance and to be heard on september 29th. that was the maniacs of -- maniacs in -- main -- action of the board this week. this would amend the planning code of arcade uses. that item will be brought to you within the next 3 months. that's my report unless you have any questions. >vice-president cindy wu: can i ask a follow up question. there were a number of request that the department made that would enforce stability. can you describe if those amendments have been considered, how you look the end force ability question right now? >> that's a good point. at this time they are the commissioners recommendation. i have a list of the recommendations. i can go over which ones were included and not included. no. 1 you asked that

they place the short-term remember rental controls in the planning co-ed. that happened. no. 2 you proposed they modify the ordinance to units that have been rented. so far we don't have the number of recommended to track the number of days. no. 3, you asked that they require any short-term rental platform or company doing business in san francisco to provide information on the number of nights property was rented. and this information should be reported back on a quarterly basis at a minimum and that has not been included. no. 4, you wanted the units identified on the registration map. that is part of the current proposal and we explained that to the

board. no. 5, you asked to amend the ordinance so that posting on this short-term without first registering with the city constitutes a violation. we did include that in the ordinance. that is now part of the proposal. no. of 6, you asked they require a registration number from the registry to ensure all rental posting. i believe that is similar. no. 7, you ask that we grant authority if we are chosen as an enforcement agency. we are still working with supervisor chiu to give us a mechanism like authority and so far that has not been incorporated in the proposal. >> no 8 you ask they limit hosted rentals similar to restrictions on non-hosted rentals. there is a lot of discussion about

that but not yesterday added into the ordinance. you saw the -- sought to limit single family homes. i believe that is in there. no. 10, you asked they require the property owners consent prior to getting on the tenancy. we require notification when they get on the registry. 11, you saw sought to prohibit sro's from short-term rentals. that has been incorporated. no. 12, if the planning department were to the chosen as enforcement agency you asked for increased funds in the department. that will be discussed in future hearings. that is not done yet stating the registration fee is lowe in order to

encourage participation for this. we are looking at finding ways to have sufficient funding to do enforcement that the legislation would expect. no. 13, you asked that we consider placing limits on allowing bmr's to be used under short-term rentals and they are prohibited from being used at all. no. 14, you ask that you require the planning department to maintain a register of hosting platforms and that is not part of the current proposal. no. 15, you asked to prohibit units from outstanding violation to be listed on the registry. that's the new component added to the proposal. lastly you asked to be further investigation for insurance requirements for short-term rental. that is great land use and there is much comment about it and they will discuss it at the next hearing at the

end of the month. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: one question, on the issue of the renter letting out their property for short time rental and you said the supervisors agreed the owner has to be notified and does the owner allowed to prohibit that from happening. >> it doesn't change any existing contract. if there were a lease between a tenant and property owner that would prohibit subletting that is in effect. if it's not in the planning code, the first time that you are doing this you cannot get evicted. you get a warning once but then afterwards the owner can issue an eviction process. >> thank you. >> the next item.

70 crest line this was before you and staff recommended denial. application. the construction of a four 4-unit building. subsequent to that, the neighbors of the project appealed to the board and the board of appeals denied the application and there were questions as to whether or not there were limitations that established this property back in 1962 and public works issued as condition saying that you could not build on this area. they subsequently provoked that and asked the planning department to look at it further. we researched that and did find evidences from previous hearings that it would continue as open space. it was not an appealed to the board of supervisors as such

conditions could be. so these conditions are in full effect. last night was a rehearing request brought by the project sponsor and the board note this was a previous request. their denial of the application stands and the prect would not move forward. i'm available for any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners, tim frye here to share with you the results of yesterday's historic presertion commission hearing. to begin, i do want to mention the commissioner president hasz appointed two members to the subcommittee. commissioners hyland and matsuda will form that committee. i'm sure if we asked the commission they would be delighted to have a member of the planning commission as part of that subcommittee. they intend on meeting over the next month and provide specific recommendations how the department and

the commissions can implement some of the recommendations in the san francisco architectural heritage white paper on cultural assets. we are happy to relay the information to this commission if the commission does want to participate in that committee. the hearing started with a meeting of the architectural review committee. they reviewed the design for the van ness brt, that's going to run in front of city hall and the portion located within the civic center landmark district. as you are probably aware the historic preservation commission as well as the civic design review committee of the arts commission reviewed the designs for the improvements and platforms proposed by sbrt. there is still design review meetings to take place before either committee or either commission make a final recommendation. we'll keep you posted on those results.

ultimately, the commissioner, the design review committee was in support of the project. they did request some more information in particular around replacement trees, minimizing some of the details of the platforms. they had some questions about the canopy structures and the wind screens. we will be preparing a memo of the architectural review committees and recommendations. if you are interested we can forward you a copy. the commission went on to approval for several certificates. they were all approved as recommended by staff. finally preservation staff gave an overview of all planning code related to preservation. it was more of an informational presentation to set the stage for the