and we get a lot of details in addition to the curtain and this map shows you the pipeline it is why we adapt this plan today we're seeing development in rincon hill working with the developers to encourage them to build the draft plan and then just a quick note on how the implementation process the impact fees associated with rincon hill we do neighborhood outreach and report that the program for impact fees this is the cost they sort of program through the plan to date with the past projected revenues $27 million a new project we expect those numbers to go up and the past funding allocations to the parks and

those will be starting construction soon and future construction i'm sorry this is a - the past expenditures went to - harrison and first street and the fire chief expenditures to the park and harrison street one extra bonus it is not within the rincon hill this is technical under the ocii we've worked closely it is essential the neighborhood street this will start construction in 2015 and there is going to be park protected cycle tracks on the streets and generous sidewalks that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions. >> great thank you. >> opening it up for public comment there maybe questions from commissioners anything from the public?

>> good afternoon commission i'm alice in wonderland with crescent heights developing 45 lansing we support the streetscape planning and have worked closely with paul to make sure that everything is happy with the plan and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> okay public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> mr. jason the commission has received a slew of letters regarding maintenance issues particularly on gunfire place i'm neutral to the situation can you shed some light you were copied on the e-mails can you explain those questions. >> absolutely there are two processes happening right now let's go back to the slide the

last one again. >> so lansing street the great colors is guy place on the map we've been working with crescent heights to develop 45 lane since they're required to build 45 lansing and we have been trying to hoping to in kind development since working on the project we've run into planning constraint and harrison is a higher pedestrian priority and also some kind of calculations with public works that we're trying to work through so right now guy place is not on the table but the hope we can

develop it we've started a conversation with public works and to find a path to build two we're going to have more outreach with the community in may and essentially the neighbors are upset it is going to be built those e-mails are saying not to approve the plan they want to make sure that place - actually, the plan is neutral on the funding in the way it happens the plan sort of size this is what guy place should be it is called to be a shared plan but approving it you're telling the departments to make it happen my sense it strengthens the building of guy place as i forgetting forgot to men o mention we're asking you adopt the plan and trying to code the general plan to reflect it be

adapted. >> the reason i'm asking it is my responsibility our that responsibility wheelbarrow we get a group of e-mails those people feel they're not not discussion we acknowledge it here and hope you'll carry their concerns forward as you just explained a that's basically all i wanted to hear on this in this group supported the plan thoroughness of the applicant for a very 4r07k9 time and added this moment residual efforts it of the too much effected by the downturn in the committee and really time to get things done you've got my support. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner richards. >> i guess mr. chase stay here please trying to understand the

piece of the puzzle so the folks on guy place when 45 lane since was approved we were told it would fund the improvements on that place? >> they were told for sure that the 45 lansing is required to build the developer - i know we were working with them on guy place the main issue is the funding constraint if we spend $40 million when we went to the community and asked them they're most important street it was declared a winner so look at the map again that is why it is a smaller section onsite in blue harrison is the pink line is expand the street that's the logic behind it we're trying to

schedule a meeting to go back to the public and find more funding. >> if the public comes back and didn't agree. >> we'll take that back to the process that starts in july and takes about 6 months this commission votes on that so we would update the sf capital plan i'll say that guy place because the park is going to be built we don't want to build the street until we have the park because the park will wreck our landscape so we have time to work with the developer and they've been able to build it later we are at the conversation with the supervisors office and public works and ourselves to find the developers. >> thank you commissioner moore.

>> i'd like to add a comment that this commission is interested in the completeness of the districts completeness is the emphasis if that means perhaps doing certain improvements incredibly so it's shared by another establishments of bulb outs, etc. and then if some the landscaping comes later i'm prepared but i'll emphasize to keep the guy folks in the loop and do the best you can too achieve as much as you can for the money you have. >> up received like 41 letters in support of the plan i think that 2 letters that were really upset about the place and couple of other 41 letters so the plan a lot of letters said we support the plan and really hope that

guy place works out. >> okay. we need another motion inform initiate. >> as well as to schedule a hearing. >> i move to initiate. >> second. >> can we set a date for a hearing and building on or after march 26 march 26 or an that the march 26 hearing is fairly busy but we cansqueeze it on. >> the second has many, many amendments already so we could do april 16th through the 23rd. >> the 16 looks like it has room. >> 16th. >> april 16th please. very good.

>> is that work for you. >> i maybe at the a m a conference in seattle but ii can't be here. >> it is on the march 26. >> okay march 26. >> my apologies very good on that motion to initiate and schedule a hamburger for march 26 commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places you on item 11 another 241 to 61 alumna street a initiation of a zoning map i believe that commissioner moore wanted to consider continuance. >> i'm wishing to delineate on

the boundaries i'm to to have the broader discussion this seems like it to comes in as a project being considered for the site i don't want to do this without the rest of the group i think it would be very good for the rest of the commission to be here and hear you present a fuller case. >> there's a point of clarification the commending commission have an opportunity to hear the whole case in front of them at the future hearing we've planned roughly for april 5th or 6 currently there's no project plans for the site so the project before before you is an initiation for the legislation. >> i got a call yesterday from an attorney i show you there's a

project it is not just as simple as it sound i want to broader discussion and don't want to initiate but have a presentation including yours with the rest of the department move to continue. >> second. >> commissioner richards. >> i think a broader discussion is a good idea especially the magnitude of the impacts it may have. >> sxhifdz. >> go do we want to hear it you seem like you have more knowledge so i'd like to hear the item and ask the attorney that is hear to have a discussion heard also and continue it i have no problem continuing it with the short calendar we can hear why we're

telegraph hill hearing it. >> commissioner moore. >> it is up to the rest of the commission i look forward to hearing it in a fuller discussion including the supervisors to remind ourselves we had a great discussion and strongly supported by the supervisors to have a regular boundary for the district and we're focused on bay area and now going outside and starting it is an innocent assessment we're starting to create raggedy boundary because last time the commissioners wanted to regulate the boundary here we are doing the opposite.

>> commissioner hillis. >> i'd like to continue it you seem to have a lot of knowledge i don't i haven't heard ii want to hear why the staff is sporting it. >> i'm of the same mindset there's a motion and second i'd like to hear the project and get more information and hold the vote so for after the presentation. >> if i may through the chair one of the reasons we're planning on having a more rovenlt decision after it is up for adaptation that's when it gets noticed a hearing notice that goes out to the neighborhoods right now no one knows about this only the people that saw the agenda that's the way it works so you can have a broader discussion. >> there's a there is a motion

and a second a desire to table that call of the question until the presentation has been made. >> that's my preference yeah. >> i think we're all of the same mindset. >> we can hear it you'll just have to repeat it in a few wings. >> good afternoon department staff this is a request for initiate the sdoeven amendment at 241 through 61 the map amendment all the times the map number ten to include did significant parcel in the bay area boulevard home improvement district this is defined in the planning code section bay area boulevard suv laws the sections in the code within the boulevard sufficiently it requires a wrufks from the

planning commission formula retail use largely than 10 thousand stewart secret and adult entertainment and other services on may 15th the blighting citizens advisory committee reviewed and approved the zoning map amendment duo to date the vice president has not received any public correspondence and in addition the department is the note aware of the plans for the project site the department recommending recommends it do you want the resolution so the commission may consider approval of the ordinance on or after may 2015 and currently, the staff will plan for the adoption of the hearings later and the project sponsor is present that concludes my presentation. >> project sponsor.

>> thank you good afternoon, commissioners tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the j two properties the property owner and as the gentleman said there is no though the property owners are represented by coupled no project that is proposed this is simply - the underlying zoning didn't change this is a proposal for the property overlay we have had ideas for development potential at the property we have had neighborhood meetings two meetings with the neighborhood to discuss possibilities there's a great deal of support we know of no opposition at all and have been in touch with the supervisors office about this

matter and i'm not goings-on to speak for the supervisor they've encouraged us to moving forward and continue to work with them so as i understand this is just the initiation of the proposal to get us to a hearing date where we can discuss this more thoroughly so we will encourage the commission to consider adopting the initiation we we'll be back to talk about it in more delays questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> any public comment on this item? okay public comment is closed. >> commissioners there was a motion to continue but we didn't have a date. >> the earliest date possible. >> that would be next week.

>> i believe this is possible the gentleman engaging the rest of the department i'll be fine. >> commissioners. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just have a quick kwes question a clarification i know we're going to continue it did you attend the committee meeting. >> basically the way the bayview works is they will state whether or not they want to hear the project and if they don't want to hear the project they basically provide their approval in this instance they didn't want to hear the daylights i didn't peron have this. >> maybe it's a question for the attorney maybe a discussion of the concept type of project

you said that the c nc was supportive of the project it's hard to look at this and not contemplate a project. >> right >> in the what's in the realm of possibilities. >> this allows four larger than 10 thousand square feet retail in particular. >> oh just retail at all; right? >> and, yes other retail uses where audits there's a 25 hundred secret invitation on any retail. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> i have a question for tom is there any illness letters of intent based on the changes of the parcel. >> no there are none. >> thank you. >> it is a call from staff it seems like it is initiated by

the property owner is this appropriate to continue this. >> we didn't consider the additional extending it since it's a project sponsor legislation. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you commissioner hillis is exactly forcing for those reasons i wanted those people a few months ago talked about this strongly in the definition of the cord focused on bay area to explore this in more daily with us. >> xhigsz is there a motion and a second to march 19 commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero. >> yeah. we're going to take a 5 minute break here the four of

us. >> welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing 2015, i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners we left off actually before i move on the discretionary review the commission that left the chambers and the public item 11 to continue it to march 19 that is actually in two weeks that works out better for the planner and we're okay with that and leave it on the 19 commissioners discretionary review calendar at 235 the

discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm david lindsey of department staff days before you is a case sorry case before you is a discretionary review of a building permit application that proposes to constrict a 5 feet deep plus firewall at the rear of that second-story building la sat street the fire call on the west property line that connects the steps on the second-story and third-story the decks and staircase were approved through a variance in building permit that proposed the spiral stairs in the current location i want to clarify that prior to the issuance of 2011 permit the project was amended to shift the

spiral as fast as 3 feet away from the property line, however, the stairs were constructed in their approved location adjacent to the west side line and the department of building inspection issued the project sponsor a notice of violation requiring the construction of a firewall that's the sub of the issue the new firewall in the rear yard that requires the granting of a variance and the vaufrt zoning administrator heard it in july it was conducted between october 23rd and november it would be your duty and the sub for discretionary review submitted on september/212450 the assisting zoning

administrator has shown an intention to grant the discretionary review it is on hold the subject property that manufacturer 42.75 in depth was part of a through lot on the corner it was subdivided and with the 77 foot lot as you can see the majority of what what was the author lots have been subdivided in a similar manner and the buildings on both frornlz with non-conforming to their rear yard the rear portions of the subject property is decks and the spiral stairs are located within the 15 foot deep rear yard the single dr request was

submitted by the owners a a two unit buildings behind the subject property the concerns expressed include the following the firewall low effect the light and air cease to the property and it is unreasonable since the project is originally issued in 2011 proposed the staircase in a location not requiring a firewall following the submittal of the discretionary review the identical design team reviewed the issue and . >> snow unusual circumstances in the proposed firewall will not impact the dr light and air they recommend it not take dr and approve as proposed.

>> thank you dr requester. >> yes. we prepared a passage for the commissioners. >> great. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is tom i'm one the owners on waller street with my wife and housemate pamela we want to give you a history the project was initiated in the fall of 2011 right about that time our house caught fire and burned down we were out of position for a couple of years while the project move forward we got no notification that project was going to be put forth by the gentleman we've checked the radius as many list my name is

not on it we had no idea that was going forward and this wall would be built facing our backyard the variance was granted in 2011 and the variance stated in order to comply that the gentleman needed to meet the city codes the project as approved at that time met the city codes because the spiral staircase was 3 feet over if i may have the use of overhead. >> sorry go ahead. >> our architect went to the reviewed the permit plans as approved not as overwhelmingly submitted but approved by planning and dbi and notes you notice in red with the staircase was originally located on the

plan and in black where it is actually built what happened with the k3r5shg9 didn't follow the plans that were approved now to rectify this we want to build a firewall where it was approved by planning and dbi we obviously disagree with the recommendation of the abbreviated analysis of the review team we think that there's significant impact here to us in terms of light and air like to show you a picture of - what it looks like from the backyard as you can see the spiral staircase is about 5 feet coming out from the rear wall of the subject property we have about 10 to 11 feet find backyard as a space so foot wall

takes up thirty to 35 percent of the air and light space from our backyard another shot in the upstairs kitchen window you can see those are significant amount of the air and light in view from the upstairs will be cut off if the wall is built there and we believe that the vbts go under the code require that this variance be denied no exceptional or excelled circumstances only the failure to build the staircase and finding two we shot hardship was not created or contributed to the owner here's the owners contractor that misplaced the stair in the wrongs location the plans were approved 3