that are coming from the area plan. there is also a report that was developed by the controller. it is an accounting of funds collected, expended over the past year. on the back of the report, a small note on the annual inflation of the development impact fees. if you have any questions, please let me know. the planning department has a committee that focuses on thinking about how to move the infrastructure project forward. i want to talk about the rules and responsibilities of that committee. after that, what we will get into the different areas. as you can see on this map, there are quite a few planning projects that have been adopted. it focuses on the ones in green. we recently adopted rezoning, which encourages and supports new residential and commercial development. just those four plan areas could accommodate over 18,000 new housing units and 10,000 new jobs over the next 20 years. our work is about making sure in the and the structure is built to support those new residents and employees. >> can you explain why y

with that, roll-call for the planning commission. [calling roll] commissioner moore is absent. >> [calling roll] >> i should mention commissioner moore's absence is also excused. this today it's a little different than usual. the joint commissions are holding one of public hearing category for every item on the calendar, which includes the certification of the final eir. following the public hearings -- and is following the notes, following the public hearing, the planning commission will consider action on certify the final eir. it will consider action on the establishment of the of cumulative shadow of it. the recreation and park commission will consider making a recommendation to the planning commission regarding the adverse impact, and following the action on these items come of the recreation and park commission will adjourn. the planning commission will remain in session and severally consider action on all other entitlements on his calendar. commissioners, i am going to read all of the items on the calendar so you know that the

a recess so i can go look at the planning code. commissioner sugaya: all right. i will still be here. since we are only allowed to speak one time, i have a lot of things to say. beginning with the comments and responses on the whole ceqa issue of adequacy and accuracy and whether we can certify the e i are -- the eir. i will try not to be too subjective. first, on a 310 a, there is a statement saying the planning commission does not have jurisdiction over port property. i think this is a patently false statement and calls into question the entire eir. section 240 of the planning code gives the planning commission jurisdiction over port property. there is also a city attorney opinion which is 86-05. it says that the above analysis demonstrates that even prior to the transfer of the port to the city, prior to the applicability of the city's police power to the court, under charter section 1.101, uses of poor lands were subject to the city's power for zoning procedures. i do not see how they can make this pattern statement that we do n

the first was the western planning community plan from the citizen planning task force, put together for the approval process. the idea was to take the recommendations for a small number to see some early implementations. there is a community based transportation program that we support on a regular basis to address communities like this, with high population of low- income minorities. those two efforts spawned this plan. the idea is the two nearterm small projects were prepared for grant implementation. to get there, the plan used three avenues. we conducted an extensive community input process and we reached out to other city agencies to get input on the improvements that you were developing in the plan. the concept was born in neighboring conditions and focus really only on the ballot -- alleys. the first one shows existing conditions. the diagram on the left in this slide shows the usage. it shows how the alleys are dominated by pedestrian traffic. four to five times as many vehicles. but they face less than ideal conditions. the diagram on the rights shows that there is a lot of

currently, the planning department has two permits under review. this is one of them and the other is my permit for wood windows in the lower unit. the question is, what is more appropriate for this building? the lower unit having wood windows, original detailing, a historic profile, or should we have the aluminum-clad windows at the top? clearly, from reviewing these standards, it would be far more appropriate to help would windows. it is undeniable. we are going to go through those standards in a moment. briefly, last week, this was heard as a matter of continuance at the board of appeals last week. there was some talk about how beautiful the window -- how beautiful the windows are on the inside. we are here today to talk about how they look on the outside. this is what we have at 62 collingwood. this is what i look at. the reason that you do not see this on our street is because 50% of the windows on collingwood street are would. -- are wood. that is because the residence on our block follow the rules, respect each other, and follow along. -- fol

as soon as we close the bonds, we plan on starting construction. construction will be for approximately 17 months, at which point we will begin leasing the units. we appreciate your support and if you have any questions, i am available to answer them. supervisor cohen: colleagues, any questions? are there any members of the public to what like to speak on this item? seeing there are no members of the audience interested in public comment, we will close this item. please read the next item. >> what action would you like to take? i believe that the matter is going out as a committee report. supervisor cohen: that will appear on the full board of supervisors agenda tomorrow, march 27. >> ordnance amending the san francisco planning code to extend existing uses. >> there were a number of amendments that require this to be continued until today. the ordinance before the committee today is an extension of the eastern neighborhood legitimization program which would extend the time of the program by six months from the adoption of this ordinance dated novem

those are the plans with problems to them. the most recent plans should be dated sometime in the last couple of weeks. i brought into your office on behalf of mr. lee's organization last week. >> are they dated january 12? >> they are dated january 12, 2010. >> than the date was not changed. they are different than the plans with the permit. >> ok. is there any departmental comment? is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: this has been looked at by both dbi and planning? it is sick to think that you think any -- that you think it is fine? is there a motion? commissioner fung: the appropriate motion would be to grant the appeal and condition it upon the adoption of the plan. >> right. to modify the permit as reflected. commissioner fung: so moved. >> if you would call the roll on that. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant this appeal to condition the permit with the adoption of revised plans. pages a1 and a3. on the motion to grant, all told, and modify t

in the form of different planning studies. one would be -- i am sorry, the second one is speaking to this open water basin study that the port and bcdc would run through to try and define what the candidate sites are the should be considered. in the context of that work, we also would be committing to tearing out and -- carrying out an assessment of a historic resources within the embarcadero historic district. so many of these resources are historic. the idea of removing them to meet fill removal and open water basin requirements, we have some competing public objectives there. so we want to work with the committee on that. with respect to fisherman's wharf, because it always has been an objective to try and improve open water basin and public water improvements in that area, which we were not able to accomplish back in 2000, we would be taking on a study to revisit that. in that context, if we were able to successfully reached an agreement about how to make improvements at the fisherman's wharf, the port would be seeking the

the planning department ruled that it was in conformity with the general plan depending on the finding of consistency with better street plans. this will be in compliance with the better street plan whereas all the signs will be placed by the curbside, you know, in the street furnishings zones so that it will not impact travel or any building entrances. we held it -- the department held a public hearing on december 7 on this issue. there were no objections raised. therefore, we respectfully request and recommend that this item be approved. thank you. seeing no questions -- supervisor mar: seeing no questions, let's open this up for public comment. seeing none, public item is closed -- public comment is closed. let's move this forward without objection. and our last item is before aspin. -- is before us. we have not called the item yet. >> item #4. resolution authorizing the execution of a permit to enter and use property for installation and maintenance of a northeast-facing wall sign at 1650 mission street by and between the city and county of san francisco and total outdoor corporati

then, the planning code violations that started when the renewal application bypassed the planning board review will finally be resolved. when you take d.r., you will right the wrongs this project has been subjected to. thank you very much for your consideration. >> are there other speakers in support of the d.r.? if not, project sponsor? you have five minutes. >> if they had any more time that would convince you had kidnapped marilyn monroe and i had her in the basement. that is not the facts. this is an $1,000 provision. the city is going to get fees of $60. mr. sanches will tell you his department probably spent 160 hours, 170 hours. dbr has probably set -- spent the same. we're in the middle of the recession and these people hijack this process to take us on america around. it is a $1,000 revision permits. not the underlying permit. the underlying permit is approved on final. it is not under review so it is not subject to any d.r. or any appeal process. there is a revision of $1,000 that has cost that takes -- the taxpayers 60 granderson of the grand to go on this married around. --

he is also representing the planning commission and joseph duffy. if you could go over the meeting guidelines and to conduct the swearing in process. >> the board request you turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in a hallway. appellants, molders, and representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for robot of the reagan people must conclude within the seven minutes and three minutes. people who not affiliated have up to 3 minutes to speak. members of the public who wish to speak are asked not required to present a speaker cards or business card when you come up to speak. speaker cards and pens are available. the board also welcomes comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please into board staff during the break or after the meeting or call the office tomorrow morning aboard office is located at 1650 mission street. this is broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78, and the bees a

the larger context. changes to this year's plan. we had a consensus at the staff level -- the way we had previously been display numbers in the report in the 1000's -- conservatively might give a false sense of specificity with the kind of estimates we are doing. it was to present things in keeping with the america's cup planning the we have been doing. that was a change that had been long coming. the plan context part of the port itself, we will maintain that. that adds a lot of value. this is what happened to our overall estimate for the year. largely driven by the 3.5% cost escalation at the capital planning committee generates. 3.5% his representative of what has been for the last 10 years. last year, 1.5%, in their early years, as high as 10%. i am sorry. this is out of alignment. this is a breakdown of regionally of the six waterfront areas where we are -- where our need is and how that has changed over time. what jobs out here is the northeast waterfront and south beach has decreased by the potential amount. those are the resu

, too. >> and what about the gap plan? >> the medigap plan would have a premium to that. >> is there a range to that or is it all over the board? >> medigap plans are not part of medicare, but they are also in the alphabet. they are consistent across state as to an a plan that is sold in california the same as an a plan in texas. however what, is different is the premium on them and thousand premium changes over time. >> okay. all right. what about the doctors? this? i mean, i was telling you before we started, i have a nephew who is patient about being a doctor. he is in his late 30's now. he is a little boy and he really wanted to be a doctor. he is and he is a good one. but he told his mother if my son came to me and said i want to go to medical school, i would try to discourage him, why? because of all the paperwork and business side of medicine. yes, somebody has to sort the cost, that is true. but you get bogged down in a lot of this stuff and he wants to practice medicine, just. what do you say? >> well, i think anyo

on the proposed plan, narrowing from st. is a big concern because currently, as he's very sensitive to traffic disruption. at those intersections, the projection is that of another building were added, it would create gridlock at peak afternoon traffic since there are very few escape routes in the area. in addition, the proposed plan faces the building against property line, which would mean that the curve has been pushed further into the street, thus shrinking from street by 9 feet. currently, the gateway fence is set back from the property line, and there is a 10-foot side walk from the property line to the curb. i am struggling to see that it is an improvement. another question relating to this -- has a developer thought about the gateway apartment maintenance vehicles that trail four or five wagons around the apartment building daily? these vehicles, along with the garbage pickup, always double parked outside the loading bay at various times, including peak periods. how will a narrower street cope with this? in addition,

here is the ground plan showing both properties. here is the area in question that we are talking about. there is a sheet of the first floor that you just saw where we saw -- where you saw the impact of the window and the stair, the window in the mechanical room, and the door that goes out to our property. and the other door that commissioner fong referred to. -- fung referred to. this is level two. eventually, this window, which is in a stairwell, will not be impacted. everything in this direction will remain. we are not touching those windows. they may have some fire issues and we will have to talk about protection, but we do not need to cover those windows. this is the third level. you can see that there is an office. there is a window here that opens into the entry area of the office and we are going to need to impact that window. there are two windows in the main area of the office. i have not been inside the property. i am accepting that the property is the way it is listed. in the main area, i assume there is a desk or a work

to start with, this is a copy of the permit holder's plan for the roof deck. i would just point out a couple of things on this plan. the first concern involves the north part of the roof deck. you can see a dotted line at the lower bottom of this picture. the roof rail baekeland is a 30 inch solid wood rail -- the roof rail they planned is a 30 inch solid wood rail. it has been changed to 32 inches from 36, another 6 inches. my objection is i am the property owner on that side of the roof of their property. i have a back down below. sunlight, air, and white will be blocked by the roof rail. it is right at the edge of the light. what i have asked them to do -- the simplest way would be to move it back about a foot and a half, so it is 5 feet from the property line. they can keep the same configuration and want to have on the rest of the roof rail. that would give me the sunlight the roof rail would cut out. this is a north facing back, so sunlight is very important. the deckhouse right now blocks a big part of the sunlight we get on the deck. we are really conce

this is the redevelopment plan for this area. when the first three projects came through, redevelopment controlled this block. their jurisdiction extended. the redevelopment staff and the redevelopment commission kept shooting down proposals to develop this site because it was not consistent with the redevelopment plan that called for open space and recreation facilities. mayor feinstein said letters as the mayor. she said another one as the senator. the fourth attempt to approve the site was in 2002, to develop what was supposed to be just what to 01 -- lot 201, but they found at the intruded in the area of the block to the north. this is a specific attempt. every one of these is involved, golden gateway, because they own the land. you are being asked to approve a project that you have incredibly sketchy information on. you have a lot of fancy drawings, and they look really nice, but look for two things -- where do you see how this project -- a really good rendering, the visual from sue bierman park, a huge part that is the south

the planning department has approved them. i believe that this is actually not a debate about window material and what is best for the building but a way for him to try to use city process as leverage in a lawsuit against me. if he really cared that much about his windows and preserving the building, why has he waited this long to install wooden windows. he just apply for a permit and got it approved last month after trying to sue me about this. i just do not understand. his desire to suddenly improve a building like this with wooden windows, that is his prerogative. i should not be punished for putting code-compliance would and -- windows in that are not wouldn't more than four years ago. he points out that i was planning on selling a property. that is neither here nor there. this d.r. is about my windows and one's right to sell their property is one's right. it has nothing to do with my windows. the planning department has established that my windows are pri and that is what this is about. thank you. president fong: the publi

, we set about for the master plan for these two blocks. it is one superblock right now, but the master plan involves breaking them into two blocs. there is the design for these blocks in the conditional use. this could proceed more quickly once we of a feasible financing plan in place. they have really exciting names right now. it will get better at some point. looking at the quarter of 26 and wisconsin, looking south and east, the architect on this project is not the master plan architect. the next slide is an elevation that is a west elevation that is looking south, down wisconsin street. so, this is where we have been. in terms of next steps, this is what the rest of the year looks like. a snapshot. we continue to work on developing a financially feasible path forward with the mayor's office and everyone else. hopefully entitlements will be finalized by the end of 2012. as i said, the draft will hopefully be published in september, putting us in a hearing in november. i do not expect action from the board until probably 2013, early, hope

the final plan was a compromise. as adopted by the board and commission, it did allow for an additional 10,000 dwelling units, but these units and the increased land for housing did come at a cost. this rezoning would cause a loss of 10,000 pdr jobs. we have seen these jobs continue to thrive and expand at a rate faster than other job growth in the city. according -- san francisco saw an increase of about 10% in these pdr jobs. the overall job rate only increased by about 2%. the plan was seeking to provide this balance. part of the balance was providing a means for this existing property owners of nonconforming uses to legitimize their businesses. the benefits of this legitimization period iis that t provides the city with an opportunity where property owners who have been illegally operating could have an avenue to acquire the proper permits. this program also provides an exception to allow use this that would not otherwise be permitted. the city is seeking to ensure that in the future, office uses are located in th

then a request for the general plan amendment to map the northeast waterfront area part of the plan. 2f would have been a consideration of emotion -- of a motion -- that the hybrid classification for the zoning map to reclassify two portions of the southwestern area of the development site to the 92 e height and bulk district and 136e to another portion. then the conditional use authorization. all of these items are being proposed for continues to march 22 at 10:00 a.m. to be held in this room. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners. >> [inaudible] >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion for continuance of items one and two a through h, i am going to call on site. [will call] -- [roll call] we have a unanimous vote for continuance of all items on the calendar to march 22, 2012 at 10:00 to be held in these chambers. thank you. >> the meeting is adjourned. before i take roll, let me remind everyone to turn off your cell phones or any other electronic device that may sound off during the proceedings. roll call, commissioner moore, commissioner sugaya, commissioner