i don't know why it's been going on for such a long period of time. just about two years of sitting there, a thick, concrete pad. i think we have pictures here that will show the structure before, not very good pictures unfortunately. that's before. here's another one, not very good either at night that we can see that do stick out over on to the sidewalk. if there were to be a fence there, it couldn't close anyway so we are requesting that everything be put back with some hesitation in the way it was and the curb cut removed. thank you. >> additional speakers in favor of the requester? if not, project sponsor.

>> good afternoon -- evening. my name is jared, architectural draftsman who was contracted to by the family to put this together. i would like to start with a little bit of history first. this project started seven years and two months ago when a member of the joel family went down to the planning department and asked if they could legally park their car on their property in front of their house. at that time planning staff indicated to the applicant they couldn't do it. they reviewed the code at that time and said that it was a -- the project scope was feasible. they brought me in thereafter to help them get a build perg mitt and i didn't actually see that the project scope was feasible with my understanding of the code. so we were instructed at that time to ask for a letter of determination to jim nixon, acting zoning administrator at that time.

in december of 2003, i wrote a letter to the zoning administrator jim nixon at that time to ask him for a letter of determination. that letter was received on january 7th with plans at that time. two months later, february 25th of 2004, we have a letter back from craig -- i hope i'm pronouncing his name right, acting zoning administrator at that time saying we could indeed do it. at that point in time we went ahead and applied for and paid for building permit in 2004. as part of that building permit we were also required to get a street use fee that was paid for in october 6th, 2004, and an engineering inspection fee that was on november 18th, 2004. at that point in time i kind of stepped out of the project. i delivered a building permit to the contractor and owner inunderstand then that years

later that this permit is no longer being considered valid and we are reapplying for a permit. there are a couple of things different for the permit in question today. the original permit called for landscaping that was never put in the plan, that was never built in the real world. when the contractor or subcontractor put in the parking pad, never put in the landscaping that was supposed to be there. also additionally in the original letter of determination back in february of 2004, there were supposed to be landscape screening and also a gate to cover the parking and a one-car parking plan. on the purpose of this permit at this time is to add the gate at the require -- and required landscape screening and curb cut that was already approved in 2004. there's a couple other things that are different between the permit applied for now and the one that was 2004. along the street front is there are existing plants there on either side of the property.

on either neighboring property that encroached into the city's right away. as part as planning instruction this time around is that we matched the planter with the existing neighborhood planting. so we revised our permit in october of 2009 to show planters on our -- outside of our property adjacent in the city's right of way. we also had to apply for minor encroachment permit as instructed to by city planning and also another building permit application that was done in october also of 2009. so the joel family feels they asked for the permit in all legalty. they were told they could have a permit and they do everything they could except actually pour the concrete themselves and they're asking you to reinstate the permit for their curb cut. thank you. >> thank you. there are any speakers in favor of the project application?

if not, the d.r. requester has a two-minute rebuttal if you wish. >> good evening, again, larry nolan. the family does not live in the house. it's been turned into an apartment complex, which creates the use of cars and parking becomes an issue. so there's one car parking space that you are hearing about is currently occupied by two cars and what's going to happen is couldn't really tell in the pictures but i believe you have the pictures with you is that the gate will not -- the gate and the cars will not fit. so it's just a mathematics problem that these are pictures of two small cars and if you put

a gate there, it's not going to work. so we would like it restored to its original -- original view. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes if you wish. >> i agree with larry, original intent of the permit was there was never supposed to be two cars there and the landscape buffer that was supposed to be there to keep cars within the property is not there now and it needs to be added off the gate that's supposed to be there to screen the cars on the street is not there, and that's part of the permit we're applying for now is mitigate all of these concerns that they have. >> thank you. i must say i went out there and actually measured the parking pass and there's no way it can take two cars. in fact there was one car parked diagonaly on the space hanging over the sidewalk at that time.

i'm no positive in my mind with landscaping and with the gate how it would even take one car. i would not like to park on it or try to because of the space considerations, plus in my mind it's totally ought of character with that neighborhood and most residential neighborhoods of san francisco in that manner. i feel bad in some degree because of what i consider mistake made in permitting going back. unfortunately too many years. but there's nothing i can do about that. and i have no one to call up here to ask for explanations because it went too far back unfortunately. but we have to deal with what we have now.

and in my mindly go with the department's recommendation. commissioner antonini? >> i agree. although there may have been some confusion in committing all you have to do is kind of i think use zphens on this and nobody else probably has a bunch of cars parked in the front card of their homes there and it doesn't look right to me. i would say i would agree, make a motion to agree with -- take the staff recommendation, which basically gives -- take discretionary review and require one two of modifications. so the way it's written, correct me if i'm wrong, staff, they would have the option to do one of these two things. the first is to eliminate the curb cut, restore the landscaping and a new fence revise a scope of the work to include a garage insertion so they would have the option of doing one of those two things. >> second.

>> ok, thank you.

session. if you don't mind, if you would indulge me, we are going to continue item 23 to january 13. that his case number 2008.0021emtzw. the mission -- initiating planning codes, zoning map, and general plan amendments as part of kirk -- parkmerced's the element project. commissioner antonini: to continue that item to january 13. >> second.

>> public comment? on a motion for continuance? president miguel: is there any public comment on the motion for continuance? >> eric brooks, green party. just briefly, this is a good idea. with the amount of turnout at the last meeting, without all of you here, it is important to get as much input from the public and from all of the commissioners as possible. >> a good evening. i want to second what eric brooks said. there are a lot of documents on sustainability, open space, and the development agreements that were published tonight and handed out. a lot of people have not looked at them yet. thank you.

president miguel: yep. >> in the microphone. >> i would like to put this in here. earthquake map. you might seek professional advice on parkmerced. it is high-risk territory in terms of a high-rise. it is next to the san andreas fault. we are talking about a map by have sitting here. that is from the u.s. geographic survey. we are talking about a high- risk areas. >> this is only on the continuance. >> that is why you should continue. >> on behalf of the parkmerced

action coalition, we are grateful to have this extension. thank you very much. president miguel: public comment is closed. >> on the motion for continuance of the initiation to january 13, 2011. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner olague: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. item number 22, parkmerced overview and development agreement, informational only. this includes transportation and housing, as well as rent consideration. >> good evening, commissioners.

tonight, we have brought before you two informational subjects, which you have requested to here, housing and transportation. it is better to do the housing police first. we will go straight into the housing portion. the commission requested that one of the first informational hearings that in discussing the housing issues, we discussed the background on how the project relates to the general plan and the larger policy issues before the city. we thought it would be good to start with a brief discussion of where the city and this project fit in with the statewide pieces of legislation regarding

greenhouse gases and transportation and land use that the city is engaged in responding to. it mandates statewide reduction of greenhouse gases. to implement part of it, the state legislation asked -- pas sed sb375 to mitigate greenhouse gases from passenger vehicles, to reduce them. the point is to shape growth in the future. that growth will occur in san francisco, as it well in the rest of the region. it is our responsibility to shape it where, on a per-capita basis, the miles traveled are more reduced than they would be under an existing status quo

development pattern. when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases, transportation is where it is in terms of the bay area. this graph shows where all of the emissions come from. 40% come from passenger transportation. the other sectors are much lower. this directly relates to our housing patterns. no matter where you go across the country and the world, no matter what city you are in, more dense development, housing patterns, directly correlates to reduce the vehicle miles traveled. i will use this chart. the bay area is less than 10 units per acre. the average vehicle's miles per

household is about 18,000 per year. this proposes an average density of 59 per acre. it could be a reduction, assuming the statistics told of a reduction of over 10,000 miles per year by each household. multiplying that by the number of units proposed in the plan area. it is a reduction of over 9 million miles per year, driven by folks who live in parkmerced. these folks will love some -- will live somewhere. if they live here, presumably, they would drive that much less and contribute substantially toward the bay area achieving its goal. to move forward from there,

commissioner olague asked us to look at the housing and how the policies and housing element relate to this proposal. we combed through the housing element and look to see what the appurtenant policies were. -- what the pertinent policies were. there's a list of different policies. we paraphrased them into groups and discussed how the project relate. first, we provided the citations here. the first is to ensure that all new housing we build has supporting services nearby. we see it as a complete neighborhood effort. we see that in the planning efforts we have done all around the city in the last decade or so. we are proposing to read the supporting services to make this a complete neighborhood.

the next group of policies relate to encouraging new housing that make efficient use of existing infrastructure and transportation, particularly public transit. as you have seen, we have talked about transportation. this project is in an area that is already developed. there is a significant amount of planned improvements. moving towards the housing itself, there are explicit policies about the rental units that the encourage the construction of new rental units. there are policies regarding demolition, except where projects that would provide replacement of those units, particularly a net increase in the number of units, and this project is proposing to replace

the existing rental units with units on a one-to-one basis. there is no substantial net increase in the number of units built on the site based on the reconfiguration of the site. i will touch on a portable units right now. -- on affordable units right now. we have made efforts to create new, affordable housing, and to build it in all neighborhoods, not just concentrated in certain neighborhoods. we want to make sure all parts of the city help to achieve our goals. this project will, at a minimum, me to the existing inclusion mary housing requirements in the planning code. the project has agreed to provide 1/3 of their required units on site.

projects have the option to build on site, off site, or elsewhere. they would build at least 1/3 on site. that would amount to a least 271 unit. the other options, if all of the units were on site, there would be 812 on-site, based on the proposed project. if they build 1/3 on-site, we would have over 1000 units built as a result of the project. if they paid a fee for the other 2/3, that would be a hefty payment of over $220 million that the mayor's office of housing would spend as it saw fit around the city. then, the last set of policies

in the housing element of wanted to touch on, regarding housing type, the housing element speaks to the need to provide aid diversity of housing types -- provide a diversity of housing types. there are lots of different means. let me touch on more details in terms of what the project is proposing in terms of unit types. the project -- to the site -- there are two typologies. there is a distinction between them. there are the two-story garden apartments. in terms of the current unit makes, 65% of the units are two- bedroom and larger. 35% are 1-bedroom. there are a few studios. of the ones that are two-units and larger, 7% of the total

units are 3-bedroom and larger. a little bit more than half, 52%, are in the towers. in relation -- there is a broad range of housing types. there is a gap between existing low rise and the towers. there will be a component of town home. three stories, four stories. going up towards the scale of the existing towers, there will be 8- and 10-story buildings. there will be a wide range of

housing types and building types for people of different means -- needs. multi-story units can become challenging. people may prefer to live in elevator-serve the units. families may find it more desirable to live in ground- level units. the project would provide a greater diversity. there was a specific question about how many walk-up units are comparable to the existing garden apartments. we have the project sponsor do the calculation. there would be over 800 direct, sidewalk-access, walk-up units in the project. it is important to note that the design requirements, the design

standards, require ground-floor, walk-up residential units at the base of all buildings. those are all buildings, even at the base of some of the towers. the neighborhood commercial core would not have walk-up townhouse, ground-floor units at the base. you can see that all around the project. in terms of the unit makes, in terms of unit sizes, the mix would be essentially the same. two-bedroom and larger as opposed to 1-bedroom. 65% would be two-bedroom and larger. the percentage of 3-bedroom units would rise substantially from 7% up to 15% in the future. before, there were only 230 units. now it is over 1300. in terms of the mix between the

high-rise tower units and the lower-rise units, we are over 52% in the towers. if we take the project as proposed, it goes down. with that, i will turn it over to craig to take you through some of the proposed building amenities. >> and good evening, commissioners. i have the overall design responsibility for this project. i would like to begin with a quick overview of existing apartments, their qualities. there have been questions raised about how the new construction, the new apartments, might compare to what there is today. some are critical of the cookie- cutter-like repetition of the

architecture in -- and the suburban-enclave nature. it is not without purpose. it has individual, private front doors. patios are connected directly to outside. there is a town house quality. it is a sense of almost a single-family housing. at the same time, there are challenges associated with this. it has been pointed out that these units were built during wartime shortages. materials were used for the garden apartments, plaster, plywood, material not put together will to sustain long- term viability as ongoing construction. much has been done. much will continue to have to be done throughout the course of time that these buildings exist. interest --