>> good evening commission president miguel and members of the commission. my name is albert chan. my family owns the building next door to the subject property for about 40 years and i lived there for about 20 years. i have great respect for pastor tim, whose congregation and devotion to their religion and their community. but i echo mr. store's concerns around the infrastructural impact to the neighborhood. respectfully i have made some complaints, though not to the level of the city regarding the traffic and parking and noise to both zion and to both -- and canaan lutheran churches. i have -- but that's not the majority of my concern. again, i respect their need to congregate and i think their bible study and other community services are valuable to the community, but what we're talking about is adding 120

venue -- seat venues with amplified sound in an existing residential neighborhood right next to my bedroom. it's already a very busy neighborhood street, and i've seen zion lutheran church grow for the last three decades of my life. most impactfully the building of their gym, which despite as many reassurances as possible, it's just veryc1 reassurances as possible, it's just very difficult to create a congregation for hundreds that has very little impact on noise to the surrounding residents. those at the south side of the block already have to know hear the congregation of children early in the morning, which as a pediatrician i'm completely fine with. but, again, if you build it, they will come. i think what the planning commission will need to take into account is not only the

needs of the current, very quiet, respectful congregation of the canaan lutheran church but what the future generations and future occupiers might be doing with that 120-seat venue with amplified sound. please if you will consider these bullet points, i invite any questions should any member of the commission which to hear more of a personal account of what life on the southeast -- southeast side of ninth and anza is like. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner? >> i might be wrong. it could be we have seen the architect before but something tells me we've seen projects from this congregation before

here. and i think that though probably what i would -- i don't know how to get around this because it sounds like a wonderful congregation. you have some incredible stories, you know, we admire really a lot of the stories that i hear today and -- but it just, you know, this is really in violation of the intention of the planning code and don't think we can make any exceptions to this. even despite the wonderful stories and -- that i'm hearing about the congregation. i wonder if there's a way -- if there's a need to expand this institution, if the planning department might crs working with -- i believe it's supervisor mahr to look for some kind of ways that are within the intention of the planning code to help this congregation expand because i know we've seen some of project proposals in the past, i believe, that were met

with a lot of challenges from this commission, i think, because of, you know, the design and other impacts of the project. so i think there has to be a way that the city can sort of look at some reasonable ways of resolving these -- the issues of the congregation and the expansion of the congregation and that it fall within the code and attention of the planning code. because, you know, this recently we've heard some projects where -- mine it seems the intend i know the board of supervisors has been very much in favor of preserving rent-controlled housing because housing is built after '79, then it's no longer subject to rent control. there's a real strong commitment on the part of the city to maintain this housing and so i know that this contradiction of that, i just wonder if there's any way of looking for solutions of working with the supervisor

to try to come up with some kind of reasonable solution. >> commissioner, i was going to subject that we -- given there has been i know some frustration over finding an appropriate location, i think we would be more than happy to meet with the project sponsor before they purchase property so that we can guide them where an appropriate location might be. i think the challenge has been that they have chosen to buy property before coming to us so it's been a challenge that way. if we can try to have that discussion before you make acquisition decisions, i think that would be a big help to both of us and try to guide you in that direction. but i would be happy to have staff meet with you and talk about that. >> i currently support the recommendation of staff for the reasons stated in the staff report, you know. sflm commissioner antonini? >> i too, am sympathetic and it's important you find a place

but i don't think this is the right place and hopefully by working with the staff, they can locate a site for you and there are a lot of vacant store fronts there and that are commercially zoned or perhaps even older churches that are sometimes vacant and might be interested in, you know, selling. and you have a valuable piece of property there. you've got a couple of units and i think you can certainly realize funds out of those to be able to, you know, buy another place that would be more suitable under the code. so i think that might be the way to do it. i agree with staff recommendation. president miguel: commissioner borden? commb i just want to reiterate what my other colleagues said and encourage you to work with the city and staff. it sounds like you have an amazing congregation and i understand your desire to have your own space and, you know, fully support that effort. but i think that it's pretty clear under the planning code and under, you know, our

priority principles related to rent-controlled housing, and this is a 1915 building if i'm not mistaken, that this isn't the right place for this, even absent the housing issue. and also i've been noticing that there's a lot of vacancies along clement street and california street and within the richmond district. i'm sure it would seem there might be something you could find in fairly close proximity that might be available as commissioner antonini said is a commercial space or even a church. we've seen a lot of churches looking to have dwindling congregations that are trying to figure out what they can do with their buildings. i know maybe there's not one in the richmond district but something just to consider there. this is not at all opposition to your congregation having a space or being independent but it's really just an issue of, you know, the priority principles

and policies that this commission must uphold for the city and then overall respect for the neighborhood and the impact from them. so, you know, we apologize but i also do agree with staff recommendations. president miguel: commissioner moore? >> i appreciate the staff's thoughtful analysis and comments made by the commissioners. i think we all feel that this particular church and this growth needs support except the support does not come by us doing what which we really can't do. the recommendation to us comes from the law in anticipation of the development rules which govern the city. what i would suggest, and that is within support of what all commissioners are saying, to work with the supervisor, we find ourselves with access to church properties, vacant properties we're struggling with to maintain and there's no taker for one either remission them or use them for their intended purpose. i can only remember the church in my own neighbor, clay and

larkin. very beautiful building. that might be too far away but the city has many church properties which are underutilized or in the process of being abandonned. so i would look for everybody to help identify those properties and help this congregation to find an alternative location. >> absolutely. i think the testimony regarding the community itself was wonderful and greatly appreciated. my own congregation started out in shared space twice, and then bought a church building that congregation had left, which later proved too small and then took over a commercial space and redid it into our present congregation. so this is the natural progression that happens all the

time. i appreciate the director's comments on checking with the department prior to purchasing any properties . i was dismayed when i saw the fact that they purchased the property because i don't know if their architect was on board at that time but certainly any practicing architect in san francisco would have known of this problem. and i feel bad that they were not advised that this is a very, very major problem in the city. >> move to dace prove. >> second. >> move to disapprove. >> second. >> on the motion to disapprove, commissioner antonini, commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? aye.

>> commissioner president miguel? >> aye. >> motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, we sort of have been jumping around today. we heard items 15, 16 and 17, which places us on item 18, case number 2010.0081, the summary of work plant request for authorization of t.m.a. as connects the continued transportation program services and authorization to provide resident appropriate placement

and training work plan. >> good afternoon. the item before you is a report and request from the championship management association of san francisco, tmasf connect to improve through 2006 through 2011 program summary and it's 2011 through 2021 proposed work plan pursuant to section 163. in addition, tmasf connects is requesting authorization be given satisfying section 164 by providing the resident placement and training program brokerage services. they have submitted to you a proposed employment work man from 2011 through 2016. tmasf connects is a private organization that represents over 50 downtown buildings subject to the requirements of transportation demand management. since 1989, tmasf connects ha

provided its members a specialized set of commuter-related services that encourage alternative modes of transportation to and from downtown san francisco. it has played an important role in upholding the city's transit first policy in the downtown plan by mitigating the impacts of increased traffic -- excuse me, increased office development and increased commuter traffic downtown. i pass up to you some supporting documentation to the status report and program plan to review and provide you with examples of their efforts. in fact, today is commuter appreciation day and they are actively involved in today's events. as part of an effort to mitigate regional traffic and transit-related impacts related to nonresident employment, planning code section 164 requires certain downtown buildings to also implement a local employment program designed to determine the number of -- and nature of jobs that will become available as a result of added downtown office development, to publicize to san

francisco residents the availability of those jobs, to work with local schools and job training programs to create a labor pool of san francisco residents qualified to obtain jobs created by the downtown office development. to work with employers in the building to encourage hiring of qualified san francisco residents and to carry out other activities determined by department of city planning or its designee to be reasonable and appropriate in meeting the purpose of this requirement. commissioners, your packets include two resolutions. the first would authorize tmasf to continue providing brokerage services pursuant to planning code section 163 for transportation management. the second would authorize tmasf to formally begin providing brokerage services pursuant to planning code section 164 for resident employment. the tmasf connects representatives are here with a brief presentation, and to respond to any questions. with that, i would like to

introduce their executive director, kimberly martinson. >> this you so much. it's nice to be here. jonas, thank you. this is nora, from our staff. we have about a 3 1/2-minute presentation but it's late and we have given you a great deal of documentation. would you prefer just to ask us some questions or tell me how you would like to proceed. >> i think your material is excellent. >> thank you. >> i think this is a wonderful program. it deals with things we deal with every week and it's exactly the focus we need as has been presented. you work on alternate commute methods other than individual cars for those who may be commuting from outside san francisco and you also are working with employers to employ

san franciscoens, which, of course, will eliminate part of that problem. and i think those are two of the biggest things we can do and certainly in your work, you may also deal with businesses and workers to convince them to both move to san francisco to make the situation even easierment so i think this is a wonderful program and, you know, we should hope that you can expand it to even more businesses. >> this you so much. i would like to reassure you maybe of one thing, the president does not accept public funding, has never accepted any and it will continue along that theme. which is hopefully a very good thing. and today's our 20th anniversary. we're celebrating our services have gone mobile. so we brought you all cell phone holders if you would like them and stuffed with chocolate if you have much more of an agenda. >> commissioner sue gaia? commissioner sugaya: this is more directed to staff. i don't know anything about this

program. i don't know why. but looking through the material i was wondering, i would have liked to have had the 1988 resolution, which sets forth the performance criteria for implementing 163, some other conditions. and the resolution of 1989, which would have given us some background on this whole thing. you don't have to go into the background tonight. but because then i have a question as to all of the material we've received comes from this organization, and there's no planning staff evaluation of whether this is meeting anybody's goals or not, independently of what we received from the group. is that -- unless i missed something? but if so, i have no in depth, you know -- so i can't form late an opinion as to whether it's

been meeting its goals, not meeting its goals, whether we should move forward, you know, how this whole thing got started in the first place. >> they're not necessarily set out as goals but rather as objectives. things that we desire to achieve and to encourage. i'm not sure tmasf connects can actually provide numbers of its impacts but certainly getting the word out there influences ridership and how people make their decisions. >> can i ask a followup question? the one thing i will say in the report it says they provideed annual reports as well as half year reporting and reference to stuff that they provide to the apartment in our information. and it's an annual report detailing progress, semiannual list of members in good

standing, biannual members of surveys in the present summary findings and i didn't -- i'm saying i am sure the staff sees it but i guess maybe if we can see when you get those reports, maybe they can just be put in our packets because i think there would be more knowledge within the commission about the one thing i have written down, which is it be interesting to see the annual reports. i know a lot of it has data -- current data but it means you're doing the reporting to the staff anyway. >> if i could, the point is well taken. we can get you that information. i realize it's not here for this vote. but in general and very broad strokes, my understanding is that the organization grew out of the downtown plant and recommendation of the plant, right? >> it did, yes. >> downtown traffic management system. so we will get you that background information. >> and i can just speak because i know kim from my days when i used to work at the chamber of commerce and i ran the championship commit write and she was always there and we worked a lot with them and they've done a lot in promoting

the commute issues in the business community. so i happen to know -- and this is from years ago from working with kim at the chamber and her steadfast precipitation in making sure member companies knew of their existence and were accessing the resources. so i do know that they're out there because of the years. >> thank you. we provided a web link too. at that weblink is the last two years, i believe, of our annual report, and our surveys that are conducted of commuter behavior conducted independently by a consultant and they provide the results of the survey of how people are traveling in our membership directly to city planning simultaneously with that. so we're not standing on the corner taking the poll and bringing the results back. it is very arm's length and city planning has always followed up on that and we always adhered to that. and also there are copies of the

resolutions that started the program available at that link too. thank you. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: kim, correct me if i'm wrong, but actually i was on the commission when you came before us last time, which i believe was around four years ago. i'm not sure of the exact time but at that time there was extensive paperwork and the resolutions began the program and whole history of what had gone on. i still have those someplace. but -- and so that's the materials as you mentioned. it is available online and i'm sure commissioners can get more background information on that. this is more of an interim report and reassertion of our interests. >> thank you. i would be happy to answer any questions you have at any time. we are here to serve everyone, so -- >> commissioner sue sue gaia, we can forward those resolutions to you. >> that would help. pardon me.

i get suss experience when the entire board of directors is solely private industry and the advisory council is private industry and i understand this is a private industry but it would seem if it's directed towards alleviating basically car traffic and encouraging transit and pedestrians and all of that stuff, that there could be some outside nonprofit-type people that could advise just as well. i'm thinking of people like tom and i'm interested to know why there isn't any kind of advisory seat for the m.t.a. >> we discussed that when the program was started 20 years ago. the budget for the entire program is less than half million dollars. it isn't something that has been of particular interest to many elected or appointed officials. there's been no barrier to their

participation, but it's a very small, privately funded organization that works very hard on these plans with the planning department staff and that is why there hasn't been that type of involvement to date. >> thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i think we mentioned this is all privately funded by the firms involved in it and any other firms that want to join. so it's a lot like a business improvement district so i think that is a good reason why they are the ones who are putting up the funds and they can find out the solutions and they're doing good work, regardless of who's involved with it. so it works for me. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> i will just say two things, one that kim always came to my meetings in the achamber as well as tom so people like tell are familiar with this organization, and i can't speak for him because he's not here but i guess the point is, the fact that there's nobody here in opposition and people who are really involved in transit really care about this stuff i

think also speaks volumes. because if there was an issue with this organization, i know we would see people here. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> i believe that the majority of downtown buildings and developers are represented and somewhere along the line we have to extend the trust that the permit we make certain requirements that these people really tried to work with each other to deliver them and unless we hear otherwise, that there's a kind of a question on their perform earnings i'm sure somebody would be here to speak to that matter so i can really only trust and be sure the department would reveal if there are any questions. i do believe this particular case, if there's any possible gap, it is bridged. commissioner sugaya: what background piece of information then, is this a requirement of the downtown plan or some -- so there is a public responsibility

here? >> they're codified sections 163, 164, 165, all adopted as part of the downtown plan for office buildings. commissioner sugaya: actually, the list, commissioner, in the back has asterisk where's the work program is required by the permit of certain of the buildings. >> i think if i might add, when we decided to try and take on the work requirement issues, you can see most of our buildings were developed before the permit kicked in and yet all of those buildings are participating in it. so we're hopefully trying to really extend the region and intent of what you were trying to accomplish by making to make the program a little bigger than it was. we hope we can do that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is think any additional public comment on this? if not, public comment is closed.

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i vote to approve the management agency of san francisco connects 26 to 29 program summary and authorize the 20 11 to 2021 commute work plan and adopt a resolution for the rising transportation management association connects 20 11-2016 resident employment work plan. >> second. president miguel: on that motion and second commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: aye. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: no. >> and commissioner president miguel? president miguel: aye. >> so moved, those resolutions pass 5-1. for anyone who is interested, the giants just scored on a home run in the bottom of the fifth making it 1-0 at the top of the sixth.

>> well done. >> next up commissioners is item 19, case 2010, .0683-t, amendment to the planning code section -- >> not yet, not yet. go ahead. sorry. announce the item. go ahead. >> amendments to the planning code section 420.1 to 420.5, visitation valley community facilities and infrastructure fee and fund. >> supervisor maxwell, who is the sponsor of this legislation, has asked for this to be continued until november 18th. her staff made a point of telling me that it was not because of the giants' game but because they wanted a little more time to discuss this with the community. >> does that -- sorry. >> i was going to move to continue. >> that's fine. i was just going to ask then

should we retain these or can we toss them? because there may be changes, right? >> i expect there will be changes. >> ok. thank you. >> so i'm going to move to continue item number 19 to november 18th, calendar permitting. >> pardon me. >> seconded. >> i have to ask for public comment, of which i see there is none. >> on the motion of second to continue item 19 to november 18, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya:? >> aye. >> and commissioner president miguel: president miguel? president miguel: aye. >> so moved, commissioners, which places you on your last regular calendar item or items, case number or items 20-a, b and

c, for case numbers 2007.1238 emtr and u, the better streets plan. >> good afternoon or good evening, commissioners. adam barrett from department staff. the agenda item today before you is the better streets plan and relates actions, you probably remember three weeks ago i gave an informational presentation about the better streets plan and at that time you initiated the general plan amendment relating to the plan. so there are three requested action items before you today relating to the better streets plan. the first motion to adopt the findings. second the resolution to adopt the general planning amendment and third is the resolution to recommend approval of the plans, better streets plan itself and to -- an amendment to the planning code and administrative code. and those last two correspond to the mayor's legislation that was