antonini: first of all i think they represent two separate units. the master unit is not a huge unit especially for a family with children and then other unit is 500 feet now which has a one bedroom. it's certainly much bigger than many units we approve and it's certainly a freestanding unit that would be available were the situation to change. we are always approving things that might be. they are independent of taking out one of the units. i think that makes a lot of sense and the elevator speaks to the earlier problem with some of these units being reaching them and it makes it easier for people to get from one 1 unit to the other unit or at least to the upper unit if they need to which is more accessible for someone who might live in the future. the first criteria that it doesn't meet it before and after. the second criteria is about affordability. it's one presumption to say that because it's 3 units each unit will be more affordable than the 2 units that remain. no one can say for sure because it's another unit it's going to be less expensive

sorry >> commissioner antonini. >> you know i kind of agree a little bit too. i know there maybe some sort of i know we have certain issues that on a state level we have to conform with we need to get this done but usually don't we have a longer period of time between the release and responses of a hearing on the eir >> it's usually about 10 days to two weeks. this is only a restriction of the alternative analysis to >> i was thinking about the time between the draft and the final hearing usually there's a longer period up to 60 days. there was a 60 day comment period on the eir and, you know, sometimes, it takes longer to get the comments out but because this was only a partial restriction the respond to comments isn't going to take long >> i want to clarify my understanding is what's in in front of us is essentially showing our work on how we analyze the alternatives so that's the new information that's been prepared. >> right there had t this was included in the draft. >> i'm poster of april 24th marry commissioner moore. >> we're still geeze the public two

commissioner antonini. commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya >> first on our agenda will the continuance item one consideration of adaptation of minutes to the general plan excuse me. related to the update the recreation and is for continuance and case two amendments to the planning code for the medal cannery dispenses is proposed april april 2014. item a and b for the case at the 660 third street are for april 3rd, 2014. commissioners we've received item 11 the formula retail controls today and tomorrow informational presentation this was a request from supervisor mar's office to teaspoon the matter actually april 10, 2014. staff is in support and item 14 at the 2051 third street request for a authorization the project sponsor is requesting a continuance i have several speaker cards and under our krerg review calendar at the 1110 ash bureau street request for discretionary review the project sponsor wants to continue actually april 3rd, 2014, >> okay. let's open this up for public comment i have a num

commissioner antonini >> yeah. a couple of things the continuous i'd like to continue to the 27th there's not enough meetings then it can be put off to a further time now the property on 23rd street mr. smith could you come up and answer a question. attorney for the project sponsor mentioned that the mailings had been made and you can substantiate those were sent out for the people who said they didn't get them >> i have here the notification filed for this project and notice was mailed to 2066 to the folks home in preparation for this hearing. >> can you substantiate it was presented by project sponsors attorney a request was made fairly recently for the 3-d rendering is it true. >> yes. the request was made about 10 doables. there's no new information for the last week so the rendering you see at the in front is something the project sponsor said they had >> thank you. appreciate it well, my feeling we need a date it's an indefinite and continue 8 indefinitely and the to the 27th we'll take up the issue of 21st s

commissioner sugaya and president fong >so moved with commissioner antonini voting against. commissioners that places you on >> - excuse me. closing the public comments that will all the commissioner and discretionary review anyone who wants a copy of the document please contact the staff. >> commissioners that places you on general public comment there are no speaker cards. >> okay there are no public comments so meeting is adjourned.

commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. president fong is expected to be absent and commissioner borden is expected to arrive late the first items will be items for continuance. the consideration of adaptation of academies to the general plan to the recreation and open space element is proposed until mark 27 and the next case s an amendment to the planning code for the retailer uses in neighborhood commercial districts is for may first, 2014. further on your calendar regular items for the first case amendments to the planning code an ordinance men, women, and children the planning code is march 13, 2014 and that's from the office of workforce development. i'll caught rending wind there's a request from the sponsor for item 5 to that considered, however, no request in writing if this matter comes up we can take that up at that time, >> any any public comment? for the items proposed phone number for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya >> i assume we'll be getting materia

commissioner sugaya and president fong >so moved with commissioner antonini voting against. commissioners that places you on >> - excuse me. closing the public comments that will all the commissioner and discretionary review anyone who wants a copy of the document please contact the staff. >> commissioners that places you on general public comment there are no speaker cards. >> okay there are no public comments so meeting is adjourne >> (clapping) hello san francisco. are you having fun yet? yeah. today will not have been possible without the collaboration of the cities family and the community activists i know i wouldn't be able to call everyone there are two pages of individuals who helped but first i want to introduce the board of supervisors. yeah. we have supervisor mar. supervisor wiener. come on up. supervisor campos (clapping) supervisor yee. we have our treasurer jose is a ners where is he we have jeff come on they're our studio officials the police chief greg suhr and others i'm sure i've forgotten i want a big round of applause for your community leaders hello in

commissioner antonini >> no. >> sxhorp. commissioner moore >> commissioner hillis ash president fong. >> commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner antonini voting against >> commissioners that will place you on item 10 for case this small business month may 2014 the fee waiver program. >> good afternoon. i'm ashley i'm from supervisor tang's office this is a waiver for permits in may for awning replacement and pedestrian lighting this legislation is in recognition of small business month and supports our small business for the vibrantcy of our commercial corridor in 201210 business played with an average fee of 15 hundred to $2,000 and in 201311 businesses applied and with another outreach even more businesses will take advantage of the fee wildfire. we'll invited all folks to reach out to their small business. we've cracked the small business and the department of building inspection to distributor this and we've transferred them into english and chinese and spanish.

antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. and commissioner sugaya. commissioners firgs first on your calendar is care and caution for items proposed for continuance but along with this and another item we would like to juggle your schedule from the mayor's office and the supervisors office and commissioner president wu as agreed to take item one out of order directly following item 6 on the overall project of the plaza program. also just a heads up to the audience and commission item 9 will be taken out of order and will be considered first on your regular calendar. commissioners in that case we'll move into commission matters itself minutes for february 27, 2014, >> is there any public comment on the minutes. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> move to approve. >> on that motion to adapt the minutes for february 27th commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya and commissioner fung and commi

>> commissioner antonini, glenn cabreros department staff. and i'll put the graphic up one more time. the code doesn't allow for the 20%. the edit calculations provided by the architect recently demonstrated it was at 13%. >> oh, 13%. >> the planning code would not allow this project to go beyond that. the code doesn't allow for variances of height. while we're on the topic, the commission's discussion as this issue came up and we actually were able to discuss with the zoning administrator carl sanchez, there is -- in term of the legal basis of the residential design guidelines, those do apply to districts within the rh and rm residential districts and all residential districts. however, this zoning district is the rfp district which is called residential commercial. and article 2 of the planning code makes the distinction between a residential district versus a residential commercial district. and with that distinction, the residential design guidelines does not apply to the rc district. that being said, in term of the department practice wi

thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, some questions on some of the findings that is right interest statements, but i'm not quite sure how they tie into whole document. there was mention that there are 117 thousand elderly san franciscans uninsured. the obama administration, i'm not sure how he is the going to be covered. >> certainly more of those people will have insurance after january 1, 2013. we estimate that about two-thirds of the people who are currently uninsured will be eligible for some kind of health insurance. not everyone will be mandated and not everyone will need health care services. about 1/3 will be uninsured. >> finally we find that families are living san francisco. more families moving out than moving in. i expect that lack of access to health care may be for that. >> not necessarily. if there were fewer families with children perhaps that reflects the need for less of a need for pediatric care as an example or maybe not, i don't know. it's demographic information that's helpful for the task

commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung and commissioner president wu >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner antonini voting against. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners we can move on to continuing our your regular calendar item 6 the san francisco plaza informational presentation. >> just waiting for the technology. sorry. i think we're ready to start. good afternoon, commissioners i'm ken with the economic workforce development. we're pleased to be in front of you to do a presentation on in conjunction with the san francisco plaza program by way of a brief introduction in line with a trend san francisco is much better in recent years at producing open spaces where people can talk to their neighbors. it's from the planning department pavement to parts programs and are doing a lot to enhance the viability of the city. just some examples of open spaces one might be mint plaza and another jane warren plaza and the mission on 22nd street and the sa

commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner sugaya and president fong. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. commissioners that will place you under ourout. >> and when speaking before the planning commission please state your name for the record. if you care to. this is for 16 a and b for case numbers 14.3 and d at the grant ton street and the zoning administrator will considering a question for variances >> good afternoon. i'm glep with the staff. that is proemg many construction for a had story family residence and a 40 height district the property is in the hate ashbury neighborhood known as coal valley. the project proposes a demolition of the family residence and for the planning code it has a demolition report and we've concluded that the possible is indeed urban censoring sound and the project is for a mandatory discretionary hearing but this is a publicly filed report. and the dr requesters include the promise size in relation to the lot and the proposed building to the neighborhood character and the adverse effects

on that motion commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fung and commissioner president wu. 2054 authorization >> patio was issued a violation in 2004. the project requires conditional use authorization for an expansion of a existing bar used to have a outdoor seating in the rear yard and requesting for square footage. the materials were transmitted to you and the staff has additional correspondence which includes 9 signatures in observation from the neighbors and there's also letters of support from the police department san francisco commission as well as calls from nearby resident. the vacant makes sense have skurndz with potential concerns. the project sponsor engaged the services of a sound engineer that's made several recommendations to help reduce the noise to the adjacent neighbors i'd like to pass those out to you right now. so those are additional conditions of approval and kind of augmented conditions of approval that the project sponsor has agreed to as well one the neighbors in opposition and

. >> commissioner antonini. i don't see this rises to the level of exception. i understand there are several questions about the delores su direct your attention but i understand you can't go to any higher height they're close to the same thing that moves he elements around from one place to another but if you look at the things by the project sponsor they've golden gone to extremes to keating keep it flat i don't like the architecture but it's a matter of opinion it's in agreement with the obtain of keeping the height down it has done that very well and the views for public and private seem to exist now so i really don't see where we have grounds for taking the dr i'll listen to whatever the commissioners have to say >> commissioner antonini i want to clarify it it says it has a different measurement this is 35 feet above grade vs. the 35 feet for curb. you can measure our height above the curve and the lower site su d it shouldn't be 35 feet above at any point. other portions of the city you have a 45 percent yard. in regards to the height >> yeah. they're we

okay public comment is closed commissioner antonini >> thanks a few rejections on the record that was very good. i think at the very gossiping while you went into details about having areas that do and don't have controls but it seems like the controls with our highest amount of formula retail and a highest amount of shopping those areas long predate the controls to u dell and in the financial district are loaded with lots of formula retail because they draw from an area far outside of san francisco where people within san francisco so f even if there were no controls we wouldn't have seen the proliferation and the proportions in those areas it's important to note that. and the other thing we noticed what surprisingly but we know that 14 percent of the formula retail are headquartered in san francisco and we've been a fertile area for businesses to begin and grow and don't want to discourage them because many small companies today are that he point of having 4 or 5 or 6 outlets and people may not time to open a business in san francisco because they've be restricted. if you went to ne

commissioner antonini >> yeah. i think this is a good project for a lot of the same reasons but i have concerns about the design basis. the architect has done a good work with the punched windows and with the bay you know the different elements of the building to blend in. i have a couple of suggestions. i think the color of the building could be just slightly darker. i wouldn't make it a lot darker but they did building open the street are more beige. i want to see the correspondence at the top of the building it seems like an awning there if we could make it a stronger correspond it would speak to the other buildings in the neighborhood. i know we have restrictions so long as they meet the seismic conditions that will work out fine. those are the main things perhaps some sort of i know the two sides are supposed to help support the cornerstone of the adjacent building but something that speaks to the line between where it steps up to the next level there are no setbacks. it's well-designed and i'm a big fan of ha

. >> commissioner antonini. >> agree with the commissioner. i think it's a good project. i don't think it has to be significantly changed but a visible staircase, you don't see it too often with residences. usually it's interior, and if it's possible to do that without adding to the cost of the project, even if the bulk became -- the end result is going to be the same, but you're not going to see this visible staircase there. >> commissioner moore. >> if we have a general agreement, then i make a motion to take dr and make modification to the rear stair with the option to add a circular stair or delete the entire stair but have an internal stair to the roof top on top of the bedroom and i can give mr. washington the sketch of what that can look like. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, are we retaining the decks in the back or what? >> if you are asking me, i retain the back, the decks in the back. i eliminate the eastern deck on the bedroom floor, have an internal stair coming up to the roof of the bedroom roof, pull this back by two or three feet so that it stays away from

is totally overcrowded difficult zone so i think we need to look at that as well >> commissioner antonini. >> i'll throw this out we'll continue the one one hundred foot from the schools and require an approval about the mc d and i want further study. the second floor is allowed and culp and the preapplication is required and the predesign and also being considered would be consideration by the planted they're doing a percentage of that type of business and a buffer zone and nolo contendere summation open site of medical marijuana or cannabis rather. also not part of the motion but i would ask that the staff asked the state to consider a state register likewise colorado has to find out who are the card holder the state of colorado has information and this survey with the state with the breakdown if we're under saturated >> we don't have a motion in front of us we have to adapt a report and there's no motion in front of us. >> adapt a report okay. well, that's - >> i'm sorry emry rogers there's a draft motion in our report it's exhibit a. it basically says our adapting it as drafted if you

seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think this is a good project it is important with a few cautioned the plan you have for ca sad and it's hard to tell the medium looks route i didn't you have to ask the neighborhoods and make something that's attractive and easily maintained and not catching all the things that are blowing around go to john

on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> no. >> that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners antonini and wu voting against. commissioners, it will place you on your last agendized item number 13, case no. 2013.1133d for 1070 green street. ~ at, mandatory discretionary review. >> good evening, members of the committee. commissioner byrne, planning department staff. the item before you is for mandatory discretionary review for the merger at 1070 grand street. the project sponsor proposes to merge two dwelling units into one unit resulting in the elimination of one unit in an existing 47 unit building. proposed for merger are one bedroom, one bathroom condo and the adjoining two-bedroom 1-1/2 bath condo resulting in a three bedroom 2-1/2 bath condo. the smaller unit was appraised at 1.5 million on june 24th, 2013 and the larger unit was appraised at 2.4 million on october 17th, 2013. units t

commissioner antonini >> thank you for your comments. in regards to the document i'm not sure the analysis is complete i'll bring out a few examples i have questions about but the other part is you can only analysis what our proposing. on some of my comments will awe lewd to the fact that maybe the things that are being proposed are not the best choices it's not before us but think the incomplete analyze some of the thanks the transit only lanes that exist they're making them more definite by making it impossible to driving in this will create more pollution it will take cars longer than to get through. i'm not sure this analysis has been finished such a i'm using gary as an example there's you'll this traffic will be forced into one lane with the other lane dedicated for business. so it's a difficult situation we have a very small city and there's only so many streets and the only way to solve the pro-problem is create now right of ways either below or blow ground and leave the streets for bicycles and cars. the other thing i asked this

on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis 1830s aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places you on general public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, meeting is adjourned. public comment is closed. [adjourned] >> welcome and thank you so itch for being here for this historic occasion renaming of the bridge for willie l brown junior. this is no better person than bridge. he's spent a lifetime providing a pathway so millions of californians could improve their lives. please stand now as we singalong with the first song maybe. this is a wonderful occasion because we not only will sing the national anthem but the negro national anthem after that. this is the two-time grammy award winning boys choir academy specific boys choir academy we welcome them for the 3 sons under the directo

on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis 1830s aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places you on general public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, meeting is adjourned. public comment is closed. [adjourned] good afternoon. we let board of supervisors of tuesday, march 18, 2014, madam clerk, call the roll. >> supervisor avalos. supervisor london breed. supervisor campos. president chiu. supervisor cowen. supervisor farrell. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor tang. supervisor wiener. supervisor yee mr. president, all members are present >> thank you ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. clearances we have our february 11th

on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis 1830s aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places you on general public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, meeting is adjourned. public comment is closed. [adjourned] >> hello, i am with the recreation and parks department. we are featuring the romantic park location in your backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in santa and cisco with someone special. -- san francisco with someone special. our first look out is here at buena vista park, a favorite with couples and dog walkers. both have a significant force. a refreshing retreat from urban life. the romantic past that meander up and down the park under pines and eucalyptus. hang out in this environment and you might see butterflies it, fennel, and then the lines. -- dandelio

commissioner antonini. >> this is a remarkable job. when i first looked at this, i was confused and i thought what was the before and what was the after because the after looks so much better than the before was and it certainly and completely in context and style of the entire street shows it can be done despite what we hear from buildings and putting someth

commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a lot of very interesting comments. i must disclose that i'm a graduate of a jesuit university, [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] educating men and women to serve others. what is before us today is our institutional master plan. i have a question for mary woods if she's here. there you are, mary. yeah. my understanding is in addition to the institutional master plan, the various parts of this plan that may come to fruition or may not would have to come before us for conditional use or other kind of approval before they are actually allowed to proceed? >> yes, you are correct. >> yeah, okay. thank you. so, i just wanted to answer some of the concerns of those who spoke today which revolved around two item. number one was i think erroneously the growth of the student body, which we have documented it has been, i think, 1.8% or 1.6% over the last 20 years and is -- much of that or some of that growth has been somewhat mitigated by the fact that the university has developed the campus in downtown area which

commissioner antonini. >> i think this is a great idea. and to speak a little bit to concerns that were raised, i'm reading into here, and correct me if i'm wrong, the business use are restricted. and i believe that 33% of this gross square footage has to be for pdr uses. ~ uses and, so, this is going to make it possible for the pdr use to go in there because even under our definitions from eastern neighborhoods, the cost of trying to rent some of these spaces is going to be astronomical. but if it's combined with the business use, then it makes it more affordable, particularly if their uses are generally a couple of thousand square feet or in that need and it allows -- and these are vacant spaces, too. it has to be a vacant space or near vacant and it has to be 20,000 square feet. so, you know, it allows us from morphing into something that would not allow pdr requiring pdr. so, i think it's a very wise use. i think there is transportation to most of these areas, public transportation and also in terms of parking, even the workers in the