>> good afternoon and welcome to hadstuff planning commission regular hearing for thursday november 19, 2015. the commission does not tolerate disruption or outburst of any kind. please silence mobile devices and when speaking before the commission do state your name fl record. like to take [inaudible] commissioner fong, here, wu, here. antonini, here. commissioner hillis, here. commissioner moore, here. commissioner johnson. seventy-first dprrgz items proposed. item

12015-0000988 cwp. interim controls related to mission plan 2020 is proposed for continuance to january 1, 2016. items a and b [inaudible] 24 ord cort conditional use authorization and variances have been there is request from had project sponsor to with draw. there was a full public hearing and the commissioners adopted intent to disapprove and continue to november 19. from the september 24 hearing there was a longer time period for the continuance to allow the project sponsor to alter the project in some fashion, so if there is consensus to allow the withdraw then there

needs to be no action, otherwise we'll need to continue the motion of disapproval can be brought before you. commissioners on your regular calendar, item 9, for case 20s 15, 00011449 redefine formula retail to include subsidiaries. we received a re quest from supervisor mar to continue this matter into mid-in an. i recommend jan 21. i have several speaker cards on items 1 and 9. >> thank you. georgia [inaudible] larry badner, paul weber and peter khan. >> good afternoon. i'm in favor of the continuance for interim controls. i

want to read the footnote in the staff report. i think that is probably a important thing to read the one from uc burgly. i also think that while you are continuing it there are things maybe you can consider. expanded the district. i brought up the san karlos thing. there are 4 units that. i also want to point out maybe in the ucb report but there is a lot of activity of units, 117 units according to the report i get from the real estate company. 117 units in flush over the last month. i don't know what it means, but it means something. condo, tic, unit. the last thing i want to say is i discovered accidently the pipeline for 2012 first quarter and it

said above moderate units percentile, 60.6 percent and found had one for the second quarter of this year and the same thing, 116. that is-what does that mean? what is going on there? is that just all the high rises or the mission or noe valley? i think that is something to consider >> larry badner, badner urban planning. i encourage you tacontinue the missionintsroom control. maybe not to jan 21 but it was on the continuance calendar but that is usually that is the practice. i don't think

people are ready to respond to this today. next week is great or whatever the staff thinks is appropriate, i'm just concerned with today. i think issue is important and should be heard as soon as it can though. >> thank you. peter pop dopilous, [inaudible] tommy mecca, susan [inaudible] and maria [inaudible] >> i was called in the first round, my name is paul weber and here on behalf of telegraph hill [inaudible] on item 9 and the continuance. this was a project started last year with a working group to strengthen the ordinance as it related to formula retail enterprises. that is to say,

companies or activities that already were subject to the formula retail to pick up something currentry called subsidiaries and we are still in discussion with supervisor mar's office about the nature and scope of that strengthening and we very much appreciate you putting this over until january. thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners. peter cohen. here as a citizen today and want to echo mr. webers comments. this is about formula retail controls. you made bold steps in updateing the legislation passed a decade prior and it was time to do that and one critical piece that you asked to have come back to you is the issue about subsidiaries and it is very real at there and we

have been deiging into it, had success with the working group. supervisor mar is committed to come up with a good set of policies but giving more time to january is helpful. this is a big issue to make a big decision on. thanks. >> tommy [inaudible] from housing rights committee. we support the continuance of the interim controls to give planning staff a chance to work on them more. specifically, we feel that they need to address the issue of the demolition of rent controlled units and what will happen. obviously we don't support the demolition of rent controlled units at all and feel this commission and the planning department should have a policy of no demolition of rent controlled units, however, if

there is in the interim controls any protection put in place for displaced tenant or what happens with rent controlled unit, we feel the interim control as it stands now doesn't address that or adequately talk about how all that will work so we would like to see something concrete for addressing the issue of the rent controlled units. that includes the one to one replacement and bmr units if that is what they propose. we would like more information about how that will function, the ami levels fl life of the building. there are a lot of questions not answered in the draft of the interim controls. we would like to see more detail on the report developers will have to produce on the effect of market rate development they are bringing. what the effect

will be on evictions and runt and how rent may increase and the effect the diversity of the neighborhood, so again, i think there is a lot of room for further development of that idea in the proseal. finally, we hope the planning department will work with the mission community to further strengthen the interim controls so that they will become a proproseal we can stand behind and support. and help protect the mission against further gent fisquaigz discorrection of the diversity the mission has. continue this item and the planning department should continue work wg the mission community to make the interim controls a document we can all support. thank you. >> good afternoon. mission sro

collaborative and here to speak in support of the planning department staff recommendation to be continued until the planning commission meeting on the 21 of january. we appreciate the support the planning department and ask all of you to engage in the community to find solution tooz the very real affordable housing crisis in the mission. the realty on the ground has not changed, the crisis in the mission remains as does the call from the community for strong provisions so let's be sure the proposal that comes up does reflect that. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. maria and organizers with [inaudible]

also here to support the continuance by planning staff for controls to january 21, 2016. we want to make sure planning staff has enough time to strengthen the proposal for the mission. we appreciate the support of planning staff and planning department and we hope that within during the time of the continuance the planning staff will continue to work with mission community. we urge the commissioners to respond the mission community demand that allow 100 percent affordable housing required to keep latino artist, working class people in our diverse and vibrant neighborhood. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. pita pop dopilous with cultural action network and also want to speak in support of continuing this

proposal. i really appreciate the support of the planning department in bringing this forward. there are some things we hope will continue to be lookinged at and investigated for strengthening the impact reports are a vital part of this proposal and like to make sure they are clearly defined in a way we feel confidence that helps curb the displacement we are seeing. the loss of rent controlled units is a ongoing concern no matter what the replacement i'm happy to see there is investigation of displacement but would like to see if there is a way to strengthen that so we are not losing more rent controlled units which a huge concern. lastly it brings me great cheer to see 1 to 1 replacement of pdr whether it appears in print or otherwise and see sphwe can expand that or strengthen that

because new pdr does not have the same curbing effect on displacement as old pdr as well if we talk in a percentage ratio we have a scenario where we see properties carve up and if we retain a level of pdr, the percentage of the actual building stock can start to get quite small given the size and development we are seeing. those are some the things my community would like to see investigated as wego forward and this time can help us talk about this more so ask that you please continue this proposal. thank you. >> my name is [inaudible] i'm a volunteer with the applauseey 16 coalition recollect a small business owner and a parent at a public spanish school and also in support of continuing the hearing on

interim controls and also want to thank the planning department for this. i think it is a big step in the right direction and with a little more time we can get more support from the community, but that takes time. it needs to be dusiminated and translated into spanish but translated from planning jargon to regular english and then spanish and that takes time but think it is a step in the right direction and hope you will consider some the adjustments like perhaps make tg go to had entire mission neighborhoods and not just the pocket within the mission neighborhood that it is covering at the moment. basically i want to say thank you very much and think the community will be supportive of this effort. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. [inaudible] mission resident. working for [inaudible] i want to

recognize keeping this interim control [inaudible] i'm in support of the continuance for the future and i appreciate that you want to do something for the mission in response the community and the community is clear, we need more affordable housing and whatever it takes to have more affordable housing we are [inaudible] we know the interim control [inaudible] but it will provide a more [inaudible] and we want the developers [inaudible] they see the impact in the community for diversity, the working class neighborhoods that is the mission and make the changes with [inaudible] if there is a way to make it stronger we will really appreciate that and we are

behind a stronger provisions for the interim control. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners . sean [inaudible] residential builders. i'm here to echo my frustration where we discussed this very item. [inaudible] there had been no out reach at that point to the development community and not any sense. this is a poncht issue for the development community, we are playing by your rules. this is a eastern neighborhoods zoning done by all these groups involved. it isn't our plan it the communities plans. it is all our plans y. was frustrated because there were different version, some had grand father and some didn't. at the end of the september

hearing we were told there is a fresh approach. most commissioners said let's wait and see what the voters want. what is the will oaf the voter. we go what that will is now but yet the controls put forward today are the exact same. when i looked at the item and saw it was on the continuance calendar i thought that is good. there is a lot of work that needs to be done. these are all very legitimate concerns. then i learned there was a request to center the item heard tomorrow. we have 1500 units that are code complying playing by your rules. if the rules are going to change in the middle of the game we deserve a courtesycally and something

more formal than a e-mail. this needs to happen in a quick process . we need to be able to follow this and connect the dautss. we remember when the springing conditions were placed in front of us. not everybody was sitting but those that were sitting, that was a big big deal, to the small developers iptown. the projects are not just wall street money guys, it is the retirement and college education money for our children. this is serious stuff and when the rules change we have some-you guys have a obligation to keep us involved. i haven't heard a word from the planning department about graund fathering or those controls in a long long time. something has to change here. we were delighted to play by the rules, tell us what they are

and we'll honor them. something needs to happen moving forward, we agree. but please let's do it in a respectable fashion. thank you. i support the continuance. >> is there additional public comment? >> if i could just-sorry, go ahead. >> good afternoon rks steve [inaudible] also speaking in support of a continuance. did want to point out whault is in the package is the same set of controls you heard on september 24 and we are continued at that time with direction from the staff and direction from public comment. that direction has not been incorporated into what is before you. that was after the controllers support was issued so this document doesn't have the findings the controllers report and if it goes forwards we need

touse the analysis for the a baseis if there are individualized reports. before this is heard there needs to be work by the staff to bring this up to date and also with what [inaudible] indicated earlier. support the continuance and ask if this [inaudible] all the stakeholders in the community to perfect this. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm here on a different item, my name is chris parks and urge you to deny the 24 ord court withdrawal. neighbors attended the september 24 hearing to express concerns for the conditional use request. both the projects exceeded the [inaudible] adopted by the

board of supervisors last spring for our neighborhood. neighbors agreed not to oppose [inaudible] with the condition at 24 ord court conditional use there is denied. a conditional use permit be denied on the property and the trees prerfbed. neighbors presented materials and kailed back 24 ord court [inaudible] no additional conditions were included at the time the motion was adopted. commissioners expressed the desire to preserve the trees and approve the permit for 24 ord court and drackted staff to bring back motion to deny. now that the project sponsor request application be with drawn, if that were allowed what would

happen? could the owner or future owner bring you a new cu application or a new application that builds on top of the trees? neighbors obtained a decision denying removal of the trees but only if the developer does not obtain purmtds to build on top of them. will the projects come back to you as another cu or dr and use your time again on this project? neighbors are confused and disheartened by the staff recommendation for with withdrawal. neighbors appealed the 22 ord court not because of the intention the planning commissioners to accept a compromise but because a compromise is jeopardy. neighbors are grateful to commissioners time and effort to address

neighbors concerns on the project. we did want to point out one thing ing the code section one, in the event the commissioners pass a motion of intent to disapprove a permitted application before them the applicant can not withdrawal the application prior to commissioners of action with passage of a written motion of findings or resolutionism thank you for your time >> any additional public comment. not seeing comment is closed. i would like director to make a few comments >> commissioners related to the interim control item we have put-you voted to continue the controls to this date that is why it is on the calendar. we propezed to continue to january to allow more work on the controls

and incorporate the neighborhoods mentioned around rent controlled housing and other things we are working on with the city attorneys office. we would continue to support a continuance to that date. i think the confusion today and the reason for amount of testimony which is in agreement doesn't happen often, is i sent oit a e-mail because we were told there were a number of people wanting to hear the item today. that turns out not to be the case so we recommend you continue this until the end of january where we have more time to incorporate additional work. just to be clear, there is nothing obyour advanced calendar in the next 3 months that is effected by the controls so there are no projects that are effected. >> commissioner richards, >> i move to continue items 1

and 9. i move to continue items 2 a to next week where i agree with a speaker that we [inaudible] section 4, subsection 6 c, we do not allow the project sponsor to withdrawal his application that we-that is part the bargain on this. [inaudible] >> december 3. >> to when we can get a motion >> you said next week. >> december 3. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> on a couple items, first of all on the ord court it seems to me and i can be corrected if the project sponsor revises a project no longer need of approval there is no reason for it to come before us. >> the project sponsor could revise the project to a code complying

project and believe the zoning administrator at the time stated that would be a significantly different project that what comes before you than conditional use so that would go through its own process. i think what commission richards is pointing out is the rules and regulations spell out after a motion orphintent and stopped reading after the first sentence incorrectly and after the commission adopt as motion of intent to approve or disapprove that action be completed. >> completely understood and appreciate commissioner richards bing that up. as far as the controls, in 13 years i remember a item that was proposed for continuance a week ahead and changed to be heard a day before and if it were to be heard it is unfair to the stakeholders reading the continuance

calendar assuming it would not be heard and did not prepare them sevl squz come to speak. i didn't read all the previous material which i would have done if i thought we would be make any decision or having a hearing on this today. we have policies in place that guvern a project that may come before us in the interim. there isn't going to be a project that will fall under that so i don't see a reason not to continue this. i think it is better to take our time and find something that can be broadly supported and i'm in favor of the motion to continuance to the the 21 of january. >> just have a different thought on this. continue the item for the maybe commissioner rich rbds will take these up, interim control, i propose we continue to the 17. on the 21

we are moving towards looking at the formula retail control and take up affordable housing bonus program which we had 2 informational hearings about and will have a substantial hearing on that. i feel adding the mission control is too much. i know the 17 is closed but those items seem much less time consuming and substantial so i suggest we move the interim control to the 17 on the calendar and if we want to push it out further we can. on 24 ord court december 3 is fine but it is my understanding because we had inteent disapprove that doesn't show up on the regular calendar it shows on the consent calendar. i want to confirm that is what we are doing chblt

for redefining formula retail, this wasn't commissioner richards program and would take the recommendation from supervisor mar we continue to january 21. >> one interesting thing is you mentioned affordable housing density program and we are talking about rent controlled units replaced in the mission. one will inform the other and like the fact that we should probably center on a policy around replacement of rent controlled units and do the mission control. >> sorry to intrupt, but the advance calendar has the affordable housing program >> the 28. >> 21 is related to inclusionary housing which is a different >> different program. >> i just want to-i like the commission to have a policy on replacement of rent controlled units and a larger discussion and filter into the discondition of the mission so

would like it a week or 2 after the affordable housing density program. >> that puts it into february. >> yes. >> okay. i'm going to not do that for a reason that you know i won't want to do that. perhaps then would it be possible to look at putting the afford able housing-i actually think that one can inform the other in terms of the treatment of rent control. our discussion about [inaudible] the affordable housing bonus program will inform the same thinking for either program. to me it doesn't matter which comes first. we'll have the discussion and it will form the other discussion. my proposal would still be to put the

mission interim controls on the 17th. no, january 14th. >> let me check with staff on this if staff is available and if what you are thinking about could be done by the 14th >> at thits point we don't know what can be done but it is our hope and desire the issue of the rent control housing units and how we deal with those are settled in advns of the affordable housing bonus program so it might work out under the way we are thinking of things but if we discuss something that enables us to discuss the affordable housing program. everything is up in the air and a work in development so whatever the commission comes up i'm sure staff will adjust their schedules.

>> that's my proposal and happy to hear other thoughts. mission interim controls january 14. december 3 for 24 ord court and that is on the consent calendar and january 21 for redefining formula retail to include subsidiaries. >> commissioner richards, accept. >> does the secondary accept the modifications? >> yes. >> commissioner hillis. >> on the ord court issue, did we-i tried to think what we did on that because i know we were in agreement to reject 24 ord court but not sure we passed a motion. >> there was a motion of intent of disapprove and i- >> doesn't show up on the continuance calendar. [inaudible] thank you.

>> commissioner moore. >> a support continences on the displacement of rent controlled units. i generally lake to ask we start initiating policy discussion of displacement of pdr [inaudible] intimately connected as we are losing work place and threatening housing and losing housing threaten work place. to not talk about the environmental issues that govern that. i would like to ask the city attorney and i clearly would [inaudible] secretary ionen tell what the rules are regarding the continuance on ord. could you restate what the considerations are by which we are bringing it back to deny the project? >> would you just read it again

>> reading it into the record. this is uner deyour rules and regulation section 6 voting under c. the commission passes a motion of intent to approve or disapprove opermit application before them the applicant shall not be permitted to withdrawal the application prior to commissions completion with a written motion of findings or resolution >> thank you for reading that again. i think it is a very important message and very much appreciate commissioner richards remembering that. >> commissioner antonini. >> in terms of the proposed continuance it doesn't make too much difference but supervisor mar's reason for the continuance on his proposal for

formula retail extensions was because of the holidays and retailers who may not available and presumebly they are available on the 14th january. it may be bet toor get that out of the way on the 14th. [inaudible] revise those to put formula retail on the 14th and >> as i understand his request is continue to mid-january. >> 31 days, i think the 15th, pretty close. >> my understanding is the motion is to the 21 for formula retail subsidiaries. >> that was included in commissioner richards original motion and changed the mission interim controls toa earlier date >> you propose to amonday

mend >> leaving the interim controls on the 21 but moving the formula retail to the 14th. there is no reason to wait any longer >> we have affordable housing on the 28. mission controls on the 21 and formula retail on the 14. that sounds reasonably spaced to me, i accept. >> commissioner moore >> would the supervisor not being here i don't want to pick a date for whatever reason-i know how who talked to so unless mr. stark would shed light on it&we can talk about the 14th and do talk about the 21 at a later date. as missioner antonini said, it was

to avoid the holidays and small business having to deal with that >> it may involve the small business commission and all kinds of things we are not privy to. when someone make as suggestion i dont think we should second guess it and unless we are told it isn't possible i'm here to support that. [inaudible] >> commissioner johnson. >> sorry. >> commissioner richards >> commissioner johnson came and wispered in my ear that is the day she is expecting her baby so out of respect for commissioner johnson, i would like you here as well. propose the dates that will work around what you anticipate happening >> 14 for interim control, 21 for the formula retail and we are not

talking about affordable housing on the 28. >> 14 and 28. >> 14 for interim control, 21 for formula retail and then the other dates are 24 ord court >> out of courtesy for commissioner johnson i accept, >> thank you for announcing my pendsing birth. >> the public should know. >> they should know, having a baby. >> second of the motion i will support that with a caveat should the supervisor have other reasons to explain it to us we can continue again so i'll support the amendment the motion with the caveat. >> commissioner richards >> i want to point out to everybody in acknowledge of commissioner moores to discuss a pdr policy along with the housing policy i urge those in

the audience who has a stack in the pdr game to state for item 8 where we talk about commerce and industry. become familiar with this and stay around for this and we can have a policy discussion >> commission sthra motion that is seconded to continue item 1 to january 14. items 2 a and b to december 3. item 9 to january 21. would you like me to call them together? ? >> commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner hillis, aye. xhishzer -that motion passes 7 to 0 and places you under your consent calendar for item 3 case 2115 [inaudible] 619

shot well street. i have no speaker cards >> any public comment? not seeing public comment is closed. >> move to approve. >> thank you to approve item 3. commissioner antonini, aye. hillis, aye. -that motion passes 7 to 0 and places you on item 4-commission matter consideration adoption of draft minute november 5, 2015 >> public comments on the draft minutes proposed? not seeing public comment is closed. >> prove to approve the draft minutes >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes for

november 5, 2015. commissioner antonini, aye. hilts aye. johnson, aye. -the motion passes 7 to 0 and places you on item 5. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> i want to compliment commissioner richards who convened a meeting last saturday at the swedish american haul and had many stakeholders present with a variety of positions, probably 35, i don't know the exact number but in that range and it chs a good discussion and interesting prooposals brought up. i could only stay a little under 2 hours because i had to get back to my dental office to see patients but thought it was extraemly well done. >> commissioner johnson,

>> i appreciate commissioner richards put toort and wasn't able to attend but will be there for the next one and sense commissioner records said it will continue my announcement. i'm expecting and i will take a leave from the 21 is my last meeting is march 1 is when i'm back so 5 or 6 meetings i will miss >> a couple things, conversation we started on twitter and after [inaudible] character messages i am [inaudible] the dates kept shifting and we can only have 3 commissioners in a room discussing policy so some were not aware. we had 30 people there

and former planning commission ron migel and ff grow and [inaudible] mission plaza 16. [inaudible] and a lot of neighborhoods leaders so it was a good discussion and all but one person wanted to continue the conversation so i look forwards to having other commissioners cycle in and out of the conversation. i'll send out notes and you will see what was accomplished. the main goal is people got in the room and didn't beat each other up. there was a good conversation. since i have been on the commission we have done a housing element inventory and have commerce and industry inventory and 8 other elements in the general plan and want to understand when we have the other 8 elements inventoryed and discussed and understand the interplay is important. the third thing, update on the short term rental

registration numbers? one other thing, i know we'll talk about the calendar for the next year, i would ask we consider when we schedule next years calendar we meet a hour later so we can have lunch and not make the public wait. i ask that we consider that. >> there is nothing further we can move to department matters item 6 director announcement >> commissioner, just answer a couple question. the short term rental registration the numbers were around 750 but more importantly the the office of short term rental is staffing up so they will be up to a full compliment of 6 people, most will be spent on enforcement since registration is probably reaching the maximum.

just if i could about the report, the report that you are referring to are not related to elements of the general plan. we don't-part of our regular cycle is isn't to issue a report it is on specific topics that are required. the [inaudible] and housing report and downtown plan report and other plan reports. what i would like to suggest is staff to do a memo to the commission outlining the array of reports and monitoring that we have to do because it is much more extensive i think people realize and there are overlapping reports and requirements and schedules so like you to be aware orphthat and maybe at some point we can have a discussion. i think there could be legislation that will help coordinate the reports better and be less of a buden on staff but

until then i think we'll prepare a memo outlining the schedule of our normal reports. >> commissioner moore >> perhaps you could also provide a calendar of the federal and state mandated update for general plan housing element which are not the reports that you are referring to. for example on the housing element, the state just amendsed the update that occurred every 5 years occurs every 8 years so there are legislative adjustment that effect us. those are 2 elements that if staff could kroib that. >> commissioner wu >> it is interesting to hear the update numbers about short term memoes. just by way the news, mayor debecauseio

announced he is committing 10 million dollars on short term rental so we may have work to do. >> nothing further i have a 7 review of past events of board of supervisors board of appeals >> aaron star. at this week [inaudible] sponsored by supervisor yee. rezone properties facing ocean avenue [inaudible] ocean avenue nct. the planning commission herds this june 18 this year and voted unanimously to recommend approval. the supervisors herds from exponent tev director from [inaudible] who spoke in favor the ordinance [inaudible] after public comment the committee voted unanimously to recommend the ordinance to the full

board. the roof top [inaudible] sponseards by the mayor was continued to december 14. at the full boards the land mark designation of 350 university avenue also known as university mound old ladies home sponsored by supervisor campos passed the sucds read as did the transportation sustainability fee. the notice to all tenants of dwelling units are demilation sponsored by supervisor wiener and tang passed the read and preference in affordable housing [inaudible] supervisor taing made a motion to reduce the neighborhood preference from 40 percent to 30 percent but the motion failed to get a second. supervisor tang made a veckd motion to add a amendment that requires annual reporting on the impact of legislation in particular, how many units filled by residence who

use the displaced and neighborhood preference. this passed unanimously. supervisor tang made a amendment to include owner move in. the preference percentage remains at 20 percent but includes ellis act and owner move in. this passed on a 6 foomive vote. the ordinance passed with 9 to 2 voret with supervisor mar and tang voting against the ordinance. next was the 5 m project and involved [inaudible] 800 thousand square feet of office and acre orphopen space. september 17 the commission herds separate approval actions. this week the appeal the environmental impact report, conditional use authorization and office allocation was heard by the board. in addition to the general plan and [inaudible] this resulted

in a 6 and a half hour hearing with more than a hundred speakers that endsed a civil disobedient act similar to the one at the planning commission hear. the number of affordable units increased from 33 to 40 percent along with a [inaudible] and number of parking spaces decreased. the boretd voted 8 to lee, campos, avalos and mar dissenting. all the project were upheld or approved. nob flaub use a good faith teerft establish childcare and related amendment tooz the sud, nda and additional payment of 1 and a half million to address the increased shadow on yerba [inaudible] the demnition of 90 foot tall parking garage and construction of 220 foot tall

20 story residential tower [inaudible] this commission heard the isprojeblth september 3 and voted to approve with 52501 vote chblt at the full board the appellate raised issue regarding the variety of topics including the adequacy of the shadow analysis and range of [inaudible] and eir of traffic analysis. [inaudible] over 6 million to the city for the use and inclusionary affordable housing plan. the board upheld the planning commissions certifyation of eir for 75 howard with a unanimous vote and there were no introductions. >> commissioner hillis >> on the 75 howard project, how is that additional payment-how does it come about or structured for affordable housing? we don't have the ability to [inaudible]

>> they did it voluntarily. i can figure out the mechanisms >> it is a voluntary contribution? >> that is my understanding. >> by e-mail or something if we can get to know how that works. >> sure. >> commissioner antonini >> on saerfb 5 howard that was the upheld the environmental document but was there also approval to the project at the same time? >> [inaudible] >> there was no need for them to act on that . thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> somewhat detailed question so if you cht to follow up that is fine. the 5 m affordable housing there were 3 components, payment to the tndc building, the off site senior building, and land dedication and on site rental building, were the changes

going from 33 to 40 percent made on the on site rental building and could you get back to the tears of the affordability in that building. >> not sure of the answers so i'll get back to you on that >> commissioner richards >> i think to the point when we were here with the folks from mayors office like mr. rich we had numbers that the project gave us and would like a updated final final. there has to be a number to close it out, i appreciate you reporting back on that. >> happy to. >> thank you. >> good afternoon tim fry department staff here to share from the historic preservation. the commission started with unanimous approval of

certificate appropriateness for 135 townsened street which involved a conversion of retail structure to office use and the planning commission will see requested for office development authorization in the near future. the subject propt is located within the south and land mark district as a contributor. the commission then also provided or the recreation and park provided a overview of the project for [inaudible] this is a two phase project. the first certificate of appropriateness involved exterior alterations to the exterior structure. the remainder of the project will be phased based on financial contributions and will before the hpc at a future hearing. the main component is convert the existing building to a community fusimty

and that will also require review by this commission at a future hearing. the commission granted a certificate of appropriateness with additional condition or modified conditions for the van ness brt project and this is just for the section that ones within the civic center landmark district. the commission asked for the project to come back it them for additional certificate of appropriateness, in particular related to the design the new bus shelters and retention of up to 4 trolley pulls that are along van ness and are required to see a rehabilitation of the trolley pulls and their inclusion in the district. the remainder the project was approved as condition. this includes instead of a cut and replacement of a portion of the sidewalk in front of city haul

and landmark district dpw and mta replace the entire sidewalk and all granite curbs be retained and uses and where granite curbs are missing they be installed. finally the commission provided or the commission reviewed and commented and then endorsed the lgbtq city wide historic comment statement. there are a number of folks in support of the adoption. one member the public felt more time should be allotted to the public for review of the document, however, there was a very robust outreach endeavor associated with the document, the historic prezenivation funds committee provided most of the funding for the contact statement and planning department staff provided tech cg assistance. the document

was unanimously approved and will be forwarded to the historic preservation office and used by the department as a planning tool in the future. that concludes my comments unless you st. questions. thank you >> commissioner moore >> i don't have questions but would like to ask mr. fry and the planning department there is discussion on the lands use [inaudible] are you being asked to participate and if so i would like to hear the department and historic preservation report to us as the discussion evolves. >> sure. >> good afternoon president fong [inaudible] i was going to touch on question that commissioner antonini had about 75 howard to provide more

information. as was reported the eir was upheld this week by the board of supervisors. the downton project authorization was appealed and schedule to be heard in december at board of appeals. the variance is also just issued today and the appellate indicated they would likely appeal that as well so both of those will be heard at the board of appeals in december at the earliest so we'll report back to you on that when the outcome is complete. as to last night the board of appeals had a meeting and consider a item that may be of interest, it was appeal of the garage door whip variance and rear [inaudible] 1364 and 1317 pacific. proposal 2 mixed use buildings that are single family units on substandards lot that back to lynch street. the project was the subject of discrepgzary review herds with

the zoning administration in august of this year. the planning commission imposed condition requiring a 3 foot set back, additional landscaping and windows on lynch [inaudible] >> there are no question we can move to general public comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time members of the public may address the commission within the subject matter of [inaudible] afforded when the item is reached. each member may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. i do have a number of speaker cards that may go over the allotted time limit.

>> i'll call in the order you gave them. john broderick, carol broderick. [inaudible] charles. gus her nan dez, tess [inaudible] richard [inaudible] and kevin welsh. >> good afternoon and thank you for giving us the opportunity to voice our concerns. one by one by one they are disappearing or being destroyed. they survived the earthquake and fires in 1906 but not sure they will be able to escape this crisis. my name is cairbl broderick and live at 367 jersey street. my house is a queen an house built in 1889. next door is another vick torier, the