was going to made another motion so commissioner moore made her motion so i'll wait >> commissioner borden s if that is to continue the motion it takes precedence. >> i think we said january was the date. >> okay. >> would need to be january 16th or the 23rd commissioner. >> 23rd is better it gives more time. >> very good. >> commissioner do you have a question? >> commissioner. >> yeah. i intooirl agree the action to approve is still on the calendar and that would be our first order of business on the 23rd and maybe a champion motion or the next week and we'd have a lot more information at our hands and again as commissioner borden pointed out at&t will be in a better position they can explain it to potential people who may allow lease space to put their antennas on. i'm in favor of a motion to continue >> commissioner ellis. you can't be back here in january for another site. i think - i don't think we've given bad information at&t struggles with that and wire like the 1700 unit street. we should move and i'm happy to look at all the sites but move to vote on the item >> just for clarity

have a lot more information at our hands and again as commissioner borden pointed out at&t will be in a better position they can explain it to potential people who may allow lease space to put their antennas on. i'm in favor of a motion to continue >> commissioner ellis. you can't be back here in january for another site. i think - i don't think we've given bad information at&t struggles with that and wire like the 1700 unit street. we should move and i'm happy to look at all the sites but move to vote on the item >> just for clarity it's not impossible for them to find another site but unlikely. >> if there's nothing further there is a motion to continue this to january 23rdrdrd. >> (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 3. commissioners then we continue on your rig calendar on item 11. at 1634 pine street public hearing on draft environmental report. please note that the comments will be accepted at the planning depth. >> good afternoon. i'm jeanie of the environmental planning section of the planning department. this is a hearing to receive comments for ca

and the other thing no sunset or no look back is okay >> commissioner borden. >> i remember we heard there are preferences for people from the base point and there's more section 8 things that may be different but i want to understand the wait list how it works and there was a reference 17 people moved forward and i want to understand that process a little bit more. >> yeah. let me clarify. so the members that you were given that 3 thousand 48 is a combined total of 17 lotteries >> so each project has it's on lottery. >> yes. (laughter). >> so for example, for ownership units when there are fewer applicants we might have ownership units that are if available maybe we have more applicants. we had 4 hundred and 60 something applicants >> are you the person that oversees each individual lottery or does the project sponsor themselves have the lottery. >> it depends upon for our inclusionary below market projects the mayor's office oversees these lotteries and for the one hundred percent rental units the project sponsors oversee those lotteries. >> i've been concerned about the marketing

commissioner borden >> yeah. i appreciate the concerns that the person raised but at any time only 10 rooms in this building there shouldn't be that much traffic from the hotel uses. i've been inside this building it's a really beautiful building i went there when someone's owned the building. i'm happy to see this is being perpetrated in a way in its architecture glory and makes a better use of it to i think i maintain it as a resource. i'm quite supportive of the project. i know they have wedding and the like that loedz have to be figured out mob you could talk about the loading. >> actually, the project sponsor has noted indicated they're interested in putting in a white curb that's an option they'll have to apply for. >> how many nablz the restaurants? - tables. >> about 40 tables. >> how many. >> combinations for large groups and sometimes i'd like to say there will be no loading off the street period. we're fortunate to be one of the few buildings on the street we have a driveway we can go down and deliver

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 san franciscan taxpayer $8 million. that's 3 hundred thousand to aro

i have a feeling it's more not for a vineyard >> is commissioner borden. >> people grew grapes back then but we have pictures when the streets were red from the wine. >> that's amazing. >> a little fun thing. >> commissioners, i do have a report from the zoning administrator from the board of appeals they met last night and heard one case a large proposition for a 6 story dwelling unit. the mitigated desolation was appealed to the planning complexing commission that was upheld and the larger project was approved. the negative desolation was appealed to the board of supervisors and it was upheld at the bod

i'd like to take roll at this time (calling names) commissioner hillis is expected and commissioner borden is expected to be absent. first are consideration for items to be for continuance for the ground water has been for continuance and case 2013 amendments to the planning to rent rooms for homeless veterans without abandoning the classification is for january twrerd 2014. mr. advisement we're announcing that the case an appeal of the preliminary share parks is improvement inhabitant enhancement project should have been on our calendar for continuance for april 5th and it will be proposed for december 5th >> any public comment on the items for the continuance for the consent calendar. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> moved to continue the items as stated. >> second. >> second. >> on that motion inform continue items one and two (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and and places you under your regular calendar. all matters under the consent calendar maybe acted upon any abby a single roll call driver's license will not be any separati

i have a feeling it's more not for a vineyard >> is commissioner borden. >> people grew grapes back then but we have pictures when the streets were red from the wine. >> that's amazing. >> a little fun thing. >> commissioners, i do have a report from the zoning administrator from the board of appeals they met last night and heard one case a large proposition for a 6 story dwelling unit. the mitigated desolation was appealed to the planning complexing commission that was upheld and the larger project was approved. the negative desolation was appealed to the board of supervisors and it was upheld at the board of supervisors on october 21st. the appellants made the same arguments as they did regarding this negative authorization and two were upheld and that was 3 to zero. the board held what was assumed to be the final permit alter presidio to make minor improvements, however, it was withdrawn and the planning commission may find it interesting because the appellants filed a review the day of the hearing. >> good afternoon. commissioners tim frye to share with you the outcome of historic pr

thank you >> commissioner borden. >> i'm really supportive of the project it's wonderful to see the reiteration. i think i've been in that blush wine bar it's great if it generates revenue. the staff i have a question do they have to demolition the space and the square footage is included in the f d right now >> so if they demand it for 3 years. >> i'll go ahead and prove it. >> second. >> i like the project i don't like the architecture. i have to agree the argument put forward are turns for me anyway and being old maybe i can't see it but in any case it seemed out of context. i'm picking up on the presentation which said more than once that you needed it to have a welcoming environment which i understand. and a means to sort of as i heard it attract people to come. it seems - when on the other hand, you're saying our consolidating 3 facilities into one because they've over crowded and it just seems like to make the argument you're doing something because your other facilities are over crowded and i want to have a better facility but to argue you need to attract people is contradictory to me.

. >> commissioner borden. i can see what she's talking about but i think we ought to look at this i see the adjacent buildings and the art scales but gaga again i don't get that. i'll say to the public if you all come to an agreement we don't have to see this again. we don't have to have it back again, if the project sponsor modifies the plan and you reach on agreement we don't have to see this again. it's in both courts we pick a time for it to come back or you work it out interest it's easier if you come to an agreement then the community can hopefully fourth what you can live with. everybody does get everything they want it's not a perfect situation. we can be respectful when someone is trying to accomplish their project but be sensitive to the situation. it would make the process earrings for us >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'll be awe memorable to the continuance with commissioner hillis. but if we vote to continue the project architect speak with commissioner moore and he's clear with what she want

one hundred and 20 and unless there's an extension from the elderly >> good questions commissioner borden. i think it starts to possess more questions. commissioner hillis >> i support the ordinance in the recommendations just a couple questions for mr. chewing. the population when with your building new affordable housing for the affordable housing we've built where are people living now are you - have you studied where people are living now? >> no, we have not done any formal studies. we do have the requirement that for them to be role competitive they've got to live in san francisco many of them do and depending upon their income and staying are relatives some days they're living with those. sometimes, we have applicant that are living in shelters at the time their applying. oftentimes they're living in overcrowded quarters so their sharing houses with families that are in homes too small and maybe there are two many kids in the unit over time >> i got a little bit convulsed over the timeline. you get a notice from the landlord this skurdz for - you have 6 years where you have this pre

you guys maybe have given this thought already >> commissioner borden. >> thank you. i'm glad to see the data. two questions. i'd love to see kind of following up on the issue of unemployment you're hearing about retiring and the trades are coming to us i'd love to know do we collect any data on that it would be nice to see how many people in the program have gotten jobs and union related jobs because we hear about that in the downturn. the other question is related to ti f. were some of the projects that got the referral were they t d f projects and what about the deferred fees >> i'll have to look that the fee is collected before the occupancy. i'm not sure how this is effected by referrals >> i think it was the certify where they had to pay the fees. it's interesting to see from deferred fees to know where we are overall keeping the project approvals like the fees making a difference >> commissioner. >> yeah. i commented on this last year i don't think we have control over the feasibility studies but it that didn't make sense to have daily city or many of the penin

i'd like to take roll at this time (calling names) commissioner hillis is expected and commissioner borden is expected to be absent. first are consideration for items

commissioner borden arrest i want to associate myself with the partial alternative and the shifting stories to better preserve the buildings and also the future exploitation of a more genuine alternative to the structures >> commissioner. >> i know no matter what is addressed with respect to - what am i trying to say. in the analysis of the proposed project not the alternatives i think the conclusion there are substantial adverse effects that can't be mitigated it's correct. there isn't a whole lot we can do in terms of preservation you know of those buildings if the proposed project moves ahead as it's designed. what i'd like to interject my belief it the facade and the retention of the that building elevations it decreases the impact but it's still an adverse impact and i think when the project comes around to the commission it should eliminate those facades. that approach went out decades ago and is a preferred approach not anywhere. if you want to see one there are examples around san francisco on the barker project that retains the one warehouse front on greg. i think it looks terrible

thank you that answers some of my questions >> commissioner borden. >> i thank you. i know the challenges of some of these. the businesses have and i think it's great we are madam clerk, our code and trying to be less riefk for the code around the space. i appreciate your clarifying this the fees i mean, that's not part of this legislation it's not for us to decide on but it seems like a modest fee. and putting those into a law is not ashy and smart but i move to approve >> second. >> on that motion to adapt a recommendation for approval. >> 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 wit

commissioner borden. >> so i want to clarify. the 5 year is that local implementation and is the board looking changing that. it seemed to be the tenants want to go back into the rental business but isn't the 5 year prelims a local ordnance >> the state law that specifics the 5 years. >> oh, sorry. thank you >> commissioner. >> i understand that not just the amendment is before us but the entire piece of legislation still has to be enacted so we'll look at the earlier part from an earlier hearing. >> we discussed the sort of underlying july hearing but we have not taken action on that yet. >> commissioners. >> just a question on the state law change it was 10 years for an ellis act and it switched do i have any background on why that change was made at state level. >> i don't can the planning staff answer that question. >> i don't know that's a state law beyond the planning coincide. >> but it was true it was 10 years at one point and it's now 5 years. >> the city attorney mate know. >> i believe the ellis act has always containe

i was borden and raised in san francisco in the bayview district. i'm in support of the beds for a house do you say that? a numerous amount of reasons. one they support people and give them resources and help. two it's a nice location the lady was talking about all the crime did nobody mention it's right down the street from the police department. they have a clinic when was right up the street a couple of other treatment centers and a like the man said it's to save them money. 3 the man says he has a business around the corner not on the same side >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> this - these comments are imperial spontaneous i don't know. i was going to speak so i have nothing prepared. i'm a veteran and i'm one of the sectors homeless population that mother brown served. i was recruited to come out to be vice president of a start up company out in california because of my standing in 91 my industry by you developed leukemia. i became homeless and thank god i served envy country in the marine corp. and hope house took

commissioner borden. >> so i want to clarify. the 5 year is that local implementation and is the board

one * my partner, boyfriend, arrived -- one time my partner, borden, said mickey should do a direct election. i said, why? the designer from the 1980's. he said, yes, but maybe it is could for perfume, things like that. to have an international passport. ok. but deep inside, i know that i should have loved to make one coutoure collection like that. a dream of the elegance of paris. and i remember that i propose -- it was the last new bid of coutoure that arrived. i thought to propose -- [unintelligible] why don't you take one designer like vivian westwood or others to make one season, one coutoure collection? >> you should call some up immediately and suggest the deal. >> [laughs] that is true. each one to make their own collection should not be back. a very attractive idea. >> as you do not want to talk about art, we will not say your work is art. let's be very vulgar and talk about money. [laughter] it is extraordinary what you have produced in coutoure. does that make any money? quick to be honest, what we produce in coutoure does not make money but it does include money. i must say, i am

. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commission president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. and that places you for item 15 2013.0959d at 1040 broderick street and discretionary review. >> good evening. mr. cabreros and the project is located at 1040 broderick street and a discretionary review is filed from the adjacent property north and facing eddy street and located on eddy street. the project is located -- sorry, the project say rear horizontal addition three stories in height and the mix medium density and height and bulk district. most of the dr's requesters concern are related to shading created by the project and actually access to solar energy as the sun house complex takes advantage of solar access. at this time the department does not see exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. while the residential guidelines do not necessarily protect solar energy the team found that the dr requester's yard is being retained and therefore light and access is preserved and at this point we ask the commission not t