i have one change i'll submit them to the secretary >> commissioner antonini. move to approve with provisions >> second. >> on the motion to adapt the draft minutes & as recommended (calling names) so moved, commissioners, adjustments 6 to zero and places you on item 10 xhirgz commissioners comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you 3 trips to noerld there are a lot of similarities between our cities particularly in terms of tourism and i saw virtually no greatest, trash, no one sleeping in doorways or on the streets my entire visit to new orleans. we went to all parts of the city including seeing some of the devastation from katrina. there was only one panhandler that asked for money. there was a huge convention of the ophthalmologists so obviously there were a lot of people from out of town. a couple of things expressive parks were closed on all the parks. they have a lot of streetcars in addition to the famous charles streetcar they've got a lot of streetcars on canal street and the historic streetcars as what we have in san francisco they're extremely

. >> so i move to approve. >> commissioners on that motion commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and mrvg. that places you under our general portion of the hearing i have one speaker card >> alex. now >> this is the first time i've ever done something like this. i want to comment on a-1. the basic what it is remodeling and redeveloping the sharp park safety infrastructure improvement and inhabitant impeachment project. it's on item a-1. the opposition i have with this is simply the fact it the eola damage as well as the fiscal ramification of this plan the project to expand the pump house as well as the redevelopment and improve the infrastructure of the park is a serious issue with the funding of the capitalization of the park and golf course the city is continuing to pump money into a failing golf course on life support. and the recent survey found the hiking and biotic trails are the number one recreational priorities of san franciscans. shatter park as failed to turn a profit for the city. and as a result has cost the s

. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have to understand i have a pretty good idea of how this particular property is being expanded and safes there's to variance but the rear generated is okay. and the house steps down in co-op the slope of the property so it seems to me and they talked about the minimum of 5 foot set badgering back on either side is gracious because we require at least a 3 foot set back and the light well, is present i'm not positive about that that maybe part of what commissioner moore is looking for. i like the project and it makes senses and it restores what the building looks like and it looks better in the future from the other which that was stuccoed. i will not take d r i want to hear with the other commissioners have to say >> looked like to know if the project sponsor architect if f is in the office. would you like to come up and talk about the questions raised will i commissioner moore about your drawings >> i'm the architect. sheet number 2 shows the full length of the lot the rear yard set set back and the fourteen feet 4 inches plus 4 foot is the back of th

commissioner antonini >> yeah. i think that was a wonderful project and most other you cities have been renovating their historic buildings and helped to make it more attractive because those were classic buildings when they were built. i would like to see this approved. one suggestion is what mr. abrams brought up they'd have to file the site permit within a year not necessarily approved it's out of their control depending on how long it would take and the second piece of the pulse they'll pull the construction permit within the year of a site permit. again, it may you turnout there's a lag between the time they file for the permit and when it's granted and it brings the two things into too much proximity. mr. abrams can you ask if that sounds reasonable to you >> i think it's reasonable only the point of classification is the approval of the first application. >> application only. >> but what i'm saying is within one year you put your application in for the site permit and we don't know how long that will take. t

shelly call the questions arrest on the matter commissioner antonini. sxhrnd. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and president fong. no. sxhirgsz that motion passes 5 to one with president fong voting against and places you on item 17 case 13.1286 d and i have a question. those plans are even more - >> i'm sorry. i want to understand are you looking the plans for barring let street because it's bans what we decided on the other case. it seems to me those plans have less information >> this is the project that lies completely different. i want to say that's a completely different thing it's legal listing something that's there so the plan is completely different. >> please continue. >> item 17. at 259 a request for discretionary review this is an abbreviated discretionary review >> good afternoon, commissioners in the a discretionary review to legal liza desk on 2151 barring let located in the midgets strict this murders approximately 2 hundred square feet of desk area. you have the case report materials and at this time staff has nothing further to add the pro

commissioner antonini >> i have a few questions. in our case report it goes so what great detail about the fact we have a problem with obesity in our country. we don't have any sort of guarantee that the type of food will be healthy food >> you're right we don't. that was a direct quote from the states digestion for passing the law >> okay. well, i know that's part of the state law but i think we're presuming we're going to get a better quality of food. the other thing right now if i understand it credible certain districts it's allowed to occur in the c m and p d record is but not commercial. if we're allowing up to i think it's a third of the square footage to be used in this production didn't that tend to cut down on the housing. we had this robust discussion about housing needs. i'm not sure we are going to have a huge you number of those things occurring but if it's used to food production can't be used for housing bedrooms would be eliminated. that's one thing that's a health department oversight but it's in residential neighb

i have one change i'll submit them to the secretary >> commissioner antonini. move to approve with provisions >> second. >> on the motion to adapt the draft minutes & as recommended (calling names) so moved, commissioners, adjustments 6 to zero and places you on item 10 xhirgz commissioners comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you 3 trips to noerld there are a lot of similarities between our cities particularly in terms of tourism and i saw virtually no greatest, trash, no one sleeping in doorways or on the streets my entire visit to new orleans. we went to all parts of the city including seeing some of the devastation from katrina. there was only one panhandler that asked for money. there was a huge

. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and president fong. and that places you on case 13 fourteen amendments to the any of us code to provide residents for the affordable housing programs. >> good evening president fong and members of the board. the ordinance proposed by breeding, cameron's and mar will have a new standard for residents placed under the eviction standard. it's approved with conditions. i'll cabin my presentation by explaining the lottery and preference program and how that will be amended with the draft ordinance and i'll finish with the departments 3 recommend modification. a gentleman from supervisor chiu off or when they arrives 53 she can speak. san francisco affordable housing programs are defined in the planning code. an affordable housing are for lotteries. they occur for new developments and as unit become available for resale or rental as tenants leave. currently there is one existing preference program for occupying units. the first currently tenant; right who are displaced in the hunter point through the city's re

. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i agree. our bar is extraordinary and we have many instances where we put matching light wells to allow light to come into a building but this is quite a spraigdz between the houses already and it's been agreed between the speakers that the amount of loss of light being used for solar power, you know, is a fairly small amount. under the worse case and under the worse situation under a hundred dollars a year and the average seems to be $30 a year and i think we really can't base a denial on that particular type of situation because this is of course it's code compliant. it's a dr before us, and the addition seems appropriate. we have a historic source and pointed out it can only go out towards the rear so i am in favor of not taking dr and approving the project. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i would like to ask the project sponsor a question about foster care. not knowing a lot about how it works except that it's obviously needed and a good thing and you would like to provide it. when a foste

okay public comment is closed and commissioner antonini >> actually commissioner wu was up first. >> you're right commissioner wu. i agree >> i think this is a good one. as to the question to the 3 amendments. i would support the 6 year period on the first amendment. i think that affordable housing development as all development is difficult and so sometimes there's not that many opportunities to apply for it if you don't catch the koiblg i think the 6 years is the right amount of time. as to the second suggestion by staff are i think that there are more opportunities than just the inclusionary program. the inclusionary program allows for the people within a larger building but there's all the housing that nonprofit builders build and that doesn't have a centralizeed system. there are more ellis eviction folks who can get housing. i think the inclusionary program i think it's important to try to think through this. i did want to ask it's not that anyone who is ellis can jump the wait list. you can only get the preference when a certainty entity is accepting applications; is that corr

commissioner antonini. >> mr. cabreros i have a couple of questions. dr requester brought up some points and i don't know enough about the code to make a decision without you helping me on it. he claims when you have a situation with two buildings on a lot that goes through between streets that you need to have the same configuration on both sides. is that true or false? >> well, there are provisions of the code when that pattern is established of both buildings on either side of a through lot and that pattern exists that lot development can happen -- say on the subject lot without a variance. it's allowed to place the rear yard in the middle of the lot. in this case to allow for the buildings on either end of the lot and that is why a variance is requested to plates the rear yard between the two buildings. >> so that's the variance of the placement of the rear yard but it doesn't mean that the two adjacent properties would have to be configured in the same manner? >> that's correct. that's what the variance is allowing and development of the both buil

. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have to understand i have a pretty good idea of how this particular property is being expanded and safes there's to variance but the rear generated is okay. and the house steps down in co-op the slope of the property s