commissioner wu: thank you. >> good afternoon, a commission. i am 66 years of age. i am an open lesbian and have been all my life. that has been very painful. it still is very painful. when i was a youngster, out in the streets, it never occurred to me that i would even get to the age of 21. many of my peers were killed before they got to that age. just because they were gay. i needed to 66 and i do not know how i did it, but i did. i will buy to spend the rest of my life in an environment that is set -- i would like to spend the rest of my life in an environment that is safe. i would like to live in an environment where people understand the experience where i am -- experience i am going through. it is a terrible secret to carry. you should also know that we sacrificed to be able to stand up here and talk. most of us and gave up our senior lunch. we need this project. look at me and then tried to picture yourself 66 years of age. would you want somebody to create an environment for you that is saved? thank you.

commissioner wu: thank you. >> good afternoon. i have been working with the neighbors association on this project. i am going to speak on one particular issue. the issue i have been working non mostly concerns the connectivity of the project. it is very important to us. that block has been the isolated block of haight street. it has been problematic at times. it is important to the community. in this regard, the developer has gotten it right. they have provided a fairly direct connection to haight street right now. there are two issues that need to be addressed. public space is identified, but it does not be, -- it is not visible, it is not really publicly a sensible. it is important that the tills be worked out in terms of doorways, signage, that this connection be made very visible. i am disappointed when i read the amended resolution that there is no reference to this in the resolution. this is extremely important and it needs to be directly memorialized by the commission. i would ask that language be included to do so. for exa

aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. you are on item 12. case number 2012.0641c for 933 to 949 stockton. request for conditioning use authorization. >> commissioner wu. >> i have a request to be recused as my employer has a project on this contract. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i have to ask for recusal because a company i work for was involved in some litigation issues regarding this specific site. >> move to recuse commissioner sugaya and wu. >> second. >> on the motion to recuse commissioners ziploc and wu commissioner ooh. >> aye. >> antonini. >> aye. >> fong. >> aye. >> borden. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya and wu are recused. * >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. i'm elizabeth wadi with planning and department staff. i would like to pass out renderings of the project and future development on site for your review. the graphics should be clearer and better articulate the project graphically. the project is request for conditional use authorization to allow construction of china town stations above grade buil

commissioner wu: thank you. let me call a few more names. [reading names] >> hello. i am here as a senior with rheumatoid arthritis to tell you how when poor in this project is for a woman -- important this project is for a woman. i live in the mission now. i get my window spit at at all the time because i am on the ground floor. i need a safe place. this is very urgent. i feel that san francisco is a city that will do this because we will look good. san francisco needs to look good for the seniors. if los angeles can do it, we can do it. let's be a catalyst. i want to state, when you see a senior smile, it is a beautiful thing. many will smile. commissioner wu: thank you. >> good evening. as a gay man and, -- not only are people disabled and gay and senior, they're also very active or have wheelchairs'. -- very @ schreck -- baraitriia or have wheelchairs'. we will be the only project that has accommodations for all of those. l.a. does not have that. these people are putting up 110. they need to be allowed to do

. -- wu. commissioner wu: i am generally supportive but i want ask some questions. in the letter there was reference to -- prior to 2006 the perception that developers would be incentivized to build nine-unit buildings instead of hitting the 10 mark and could you elaborate on that? >> it is a great question. the planning code stipulates that buildings can be considered a single project for purposes of the inclusion requirement. and when projects come in for their entitlement, when proposed lot substitutions -- subdivisions are made, there is a regulatory oversight mechanism that insurers the planning department can interpret that agglomeration of individual parcels as a single project and apply the inclusion requirement to it. i cannot speak with great detail to the mechanisms that moves through time. both from neighborhood advocacy and planning department, we understand the concern about avoiding inclusion very requirement through lot subdivision has been dealt with. >> i wanted to -- we have special restrictions. if future development happens, we consider it a pha

commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner moore: the basic elements of agreement should be in place and spelled out. what surprises me is that this letter of concern is written today. i would assume, if staff would have been involved in this at an appropriate time, it would not be in front of us today. it surprises me, while i fully see the support of the community at large, the technical detail is part of what we need to be sure of. otherwise, those issues which are not addressed. i would have to ask the attorney as to whether we could craft and forcible sound proofing requirements for this to happen. i would be more comfortable continuing ed until the understanding between the applicant and the adjoining owners is fully technically resolved and then we can support this project. we're not saying that we are not supporting it, we're supporting the intent, except for that missing type of communication. arcelia hurta>> we do not have e information before us to craft the right legislation on the sound. >> i am not t

commissioner wu: thank you. i'm going to call a few more names. [reading names] >> good afternoon and good evening. i have the. here once or twice before. i come here wearing two hats, as a senior and as a gay man. i am addressing affordable housing parts of the project. when i was growing up, in the midwest coming into my identity as a game boy and and a gay adolescents and and a gay man, it never crossed my mind that i could stand in front of the commission and ask for consideration as an openly gay man. there is a part of me -- i am jewish so the word is --

. >> commissioner wu? >> move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval on ta motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioner, that motion passed unanimous. >> commissioners, you are on your regular calendar, item number 13, case number 2011.0705l, market street say son ri discontiguous district, market and franklin streets between fell street, van ness avenue and valencia. >> my presentation is based on a powerpoint presentation, we ask to provide the recommendation on the landmark district consisting of 8 properties known as the market street masonry discontiguous district. the commission is requested to provide its review and comment on three items specifically. i'd like to address the consistency of the proposed designation with the policies imbedded in the general plan, the priority policies section of 101.1, particularly the provision of housing to meet th

wu. mr.cohen and if there is anyone else who would like to speak, i don't have any other speaker cards, but please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors, peter cohen and i'm here today just as and a citizen and activist in my neighborhood work. for the last ten or more years i have been very involved in the upper valley area on retail issues. so i guess i approved a little bit of history. i worked on the initial legislation and i'm really happy to see this level of really deep, analytical work being done in a phase 2. because at the time, we didn't have a really good data or studies and there was actually a reticence to do that. and i think i testified here, supervisor mar, several months ago, that i think the next step in terms of really understanding formula retail as the an economic level, we have to get down further into this kind of analysis. and the tools, i think that we need to review projects are just what is coming out here. you know, eventually we have a set of criteria now

. >> commissioner wu? >> in listening to the arguments today, i think it's always hard for me to hear that you have to have a new addition to have a family in the city, i think that is not true. i think that there are families living in sro's, there's families living in really small homes, so the argument doesn't really hold with me. i just wanted to mention that, we've heard that in a lot of dr's, that said for this building though, seeing especially the front elevation of how far up the addition goes, the addition again -- or with some of the other commissioners, commissioners moore and borden, the addition doesn't bother me, it looks like it matches the buildings to either side of it. i could be supportive of some move to set back the top storey that may give some gesture to making it more diminished but again the hiekt of it, the addition itself is not a concern for me. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, to argue that it's a code compliant project, of course every project that comes to us for dr is cod

>> yep. >> commissioner wu. >> following on commissioner sugaya's question, if at the end of the day if everything gets out from the plan but all of the shadow budget not used --ly use cloak y'all terms, is that thrown away or remain for some other building to use it? * >> it would remain. but we would posit that the criteria adopted with the budgets themselves would limit that to those buildings that fit those shadow profiles and so forth. so it is theoretically possible a building outside this plan could meet that, but it is also probably fairly unlikely.

commission wu, eye. commissioner president fong, aye.hat pass says unanimously and places you under commissioners questions and matters. excuse me. >> very briefly, i am also inclined to grant the variance for this matter. this extension modification does appear to be consistent with the required findings for variance, and we will be issuing a variance decision letter shortly which will bring with it a 10 day window to the board of appeals. if anyone would like a copy of that letter provide that to the commission secretary. as a matter of house ceerption we would close the public hearing on the variance as well. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners questions and matters, item 8, commission comments and questions. >> president fong: commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: thank you. yesterday, the joint subcommittee of historical preservation and planning met, and discussed an issue regarding clarification of the position, which can't talk about the details of, but we did have commentary from some of the members of department o

. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. if i could ask staff a couple of questions. i also want to thank you for the level detail in this report. i think there's been a lot of questions about shadows over the years . this answers some of them. i specifically want to ask questions about the impact fees. it was stated that the 12.5 million for new impact fees for parks outside the transit area plan. i'm curious to understand who collects the fees, who is responsible for enforcing the fees, which city agency deals with them after they are collected. the fees are collected by the planning department and dbi is part of the building entitlement and site permits. essentially fees are owed before the project can pull its first site permit. after entitlement typically if a large project is moving forward full steam ahead it is maybe a year or so before they pull the site permit. by that point fees are owed. it is part of the standard procedure. dbi won't issue permit unless demonstrated fees are paid. then goes to the city treasurer. in terms of -- more importantly, how the f

. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> passes unanimously. continued to october 4th, public hearing is open. you are * now on item 15. case number 2011.0761db for 611 buena vista west, discretionary review. when you come up to speak bring your material at that time. thank you. please do not stand around the front of the door. >>> good afternoon, commissioner fong and members of the planning commission. tom nguyen presenting discretionary review on building application for 611 buena vista west avenue. the proposal is an operation to existing two-story over basement single family dwelling, which includes a third story vertical addition with a deck and stairway penthouse above the roof. the proposed third story would be within the existing building footprint. and including front and rear setbacks. proposed roof deck would also be at center of the roof. with setback from all four sides. there are two applications filed. staff would like to make a clarification regarding the dr requesters. that is page three in discretionary review analysis. becau

. >> commissioner wu. >> i wanted to ask the treasury tax collector is starting to go after property owners, but no one is enforcing right now whether or not you are leasing your parking to the right person, correct? >> i'm not aware of any such enforcement. i imagine there is always going to be -- there are knowledgeable people who can make complaints and perhaps staff can add dress that. >> i ask that because i actually was surprised also. i didn't know this was a regulation. i think even if my building, my neighbors i think that they are renting to what seems like anyone who comes through the door. so i'm in favor of having some way of collecting tax that makes sense for property owners. i want to make sure we are not doing things to encourage more commuters to drive in to rent spots that are not available. for me this legislation does seem somewhat de minimus. it doesn't seem like it creates this giant market, but i think i'm also trying to think through the larger questions of practically what does this mean. i think, to be honest on the ground, it is going to be similar to the

. >> president fong: commissioner wu. >> vice president wu: thank you. i'm also, as the rest of the commissioners are supportive of this idea of the bus -- market street. i liked hearing this idea of the connectors and nodes and supportive of what commissioner sugaya mentioned regarding trying to reenforce what already exists, looking for where there's activity and building upon that. i also liked hearing the presentation of principle around being inclusive. i was having a conversation, i think it was with commissioner borden around what if there were such a thing as a services parklet for people who are homeless. and i think that it sort of just seeks to understand who's already on market street and how to maybe address the needs of all people. and then the last thing i want to talk about is pedestrians. so you just mentioned that it's about 50% pedestrian. everyone anticipated of their trip is a pedestrian, if you drove, if you took transit, on and on. so i appreciate all the looking at the tradeoffs of what happens about the different sort of conflict

eric wu, they give for stepping forward. -- thank you for stepping forward. iris, thank you for being here. kyren, thank you for being here and being part of the effort. lily, thank you for stepping forward. mia, thank you for being part of this. mia, thank you. nicholas persky, a key for being part of this and stepping forward. -- thank you for being part of this and stepping forward. paul rodriguez, thank you for stepping forward. rachel broadwyn, thank you. sarah armstrong, thank you for stepping forward. vanessa, thank you for being part of this. vee, thank you. that is our commissions. let us proceed with the swearing in. stand if you can and raise your right hand, those that can do so. please repeat after me. i, your name, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california, that i take this obligatio