>> commissioners, there is a motion made by commissioner obrian to recommend oproval to the supervisors, 120773. seconded by rilely, on that motion commissioner adams? >> aye. >> dooley? >> yes. >> dwight? >> o'brien >> yes. >> white? >> yes. >> rilely, aye,. >> the motion passed 6-0. >> great, thank you. >> next item. next president would you like to call the next two items together? >> yes, i would call to item 8 and 9 together. >> commissioners, item eight, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 1 20796 planning cold establishing the divisadero

street neighborhood commercial district. in your packet on the file number along with the digest. presentation by we have chris... on file 120814 planning code establishing the fillmore street neighborhood and commercial district and i well introduce supervisor lugy. >> welcome. and >> thank you. >> thank you for coming. >> thanks. >> yes, we had a meeting early on with a member of the public who was interested in opening a brew pub on divisadero. he came across this problem where the second-floor uses were not allowed that were commercial and he was interested in using the second floor of a formally industrial

site to create a restaurant. since that time, i believe that he has decided on a different location. but it did spark the conversation of the necessity to have some customized controls along the divisadero corridor to facilitate a variety of uses and be in sync with what we see there currently which is pretty much a very exciting kind of place, where it is high demand. we are seeing a buy right open in a few weeks and so we really wanted to kind of respond and rather than have to respond piece meal every time, a request came our way, that did not conform to the current code. we thought that we wanted to start the conversation with the members of the corridor,

merchant's association to really decide whether the best approach would be to just start named nc and so we had the first meeting with the merchants, i believe that it went very well and we planned to have a couple more meetings with the merchant to see where they are with this issue. >> also, i have to leave, i do have a meeting in the community, but we are also considering upper, or a lower fillmore district, named nc, which we hope fill help to facilitate and help to promote the fillmore commercial corridor. we plan to have a meeting this friday, i believe, with commissioner white. and really explore those ideas more. when we are able to customize the controls it does help to facilitate a lot of the commercial possibilities and really open up the potential for jobs and hopefully just

revitalize the commercial corridors. so that was the only intention behind our wanting to introduce these named ncs. as you know those named ncs on the hace valley, i believe, also, you know, obviously union street and other places. and so to that and that was the reason that we decided to go ahead and begin the conversation as least. so, we have here roso and rogers from the planning department who are also working on this and so if you have questions if you could correct them towards them that would be great. >> great. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. and i just want to say this is really cool thing that you are doing divisadero treat is going through an amazing renaissance right now and every time that you go down there, it is like happening. >> commissioner commons? questions?

>> commissioner o'brien? >> i could address it to the members of the planning department? if you want to step up. >> commissioners, may i recommend i think that supervisor olague gave an overview. we may want to have an official presentation and so perhaps we start with the first one listed is the divisader with an official presentation >> good idea. >> and the distinction of going from an nc one to a named nc. >> good afternoon, commissioners rogers department staff and i would happy to provide that overview and answer any questions that you might have. >> okay. >> for clarity, i am the only staff here from the planning department and if you have any questions about why they are doing this or what the process will be going forward she will be the best person for those.

just like your staff also reviews ordinances which effects small businesses, the planning commission has staff that reviews ordinances that effects planning and zoning controls and so i manage that review. so we are in the process of reviewing these as we understand the supervisor is not in a rush to move them forward. but they might go to the planning commission some time in i am sorry. october. >> so we have not actually done our analysis, but i can give you a description of the controls. so the zoning controls in the city of san francisco are that there are two primary categories for these commercial dikts. the first is kind of a generic commercial district based upon the intensity of the street and the commercial uses and buildings on that street. so they are organized number merckly. districts, 1, 2, 3, in addition to those, there are throughout the city, named commercial districts and as the supervisor

said it would be one neighborhood, upper market and tervil street and many, many streets have their own zoning controls. and in what this does is it enables the city's policy makers to consider tweaks to those particular corridors without necessarily effecting the changes throughout the city wide. for instance, if you run into an issue with the zoning on market street where it is zoned nc free, and you want to make a change to that then you also need to do out reach and work with other parcels and while the generic controls are good and they provide consistency, they are less adapable when you need to make specific changes to get the specific character that you need. what we have seen is the various officials are responding to the constituents and they need to have the

controls that they can tailor to their district. and this most relentcy as supervisor created some named commercial districts in the sunset and now these would be creating new districts in fillmore and divisadero. >> these are nc 2 and 3. what she has done is taken the base zoning for nc two for divisadero and nc three... let me look it might be the opposite and then off of those, she has basically kept the controls where the retail is permitted on the first, second, third floor whereas the use limits and all of the controls exist there and replicated them with a few new changes. the new changes that she has done or things that we have seen as kind of standard, good planning principles applied

elsewhere throughout the city. the first is a ground floor bonus for active uses on the ground floor where you could get up to an additional five extra feet if your ground floor met the requirement for an active use. and that is meant to create better ground floor spaces and i am sure that you considered ordinances which did that sort of thing. >> the other thing would be to remove the minimum parking requirements and parking as you know is a heated issue and it is important to understand that in someplace wes have parking requirements we you must provide x-amount of parking for use and in other places we have parking maximum caps where you cannot exceed that. so both of those regulate it, one by the minimum and the other by the maximum. >> in this area, the supervisor is removing the minimum requirements but not putting a maximum cap. so this allows more flexibility.

it also helps to preserve the ground floor, when you think about your traditional neighborhood shopping street in san francisco, if it is only 25-foot wide and you add residential above, the planning code would require you to add additional parking for that residential and if you have 25-foot storefront and you need a 12 and a half garage then your retail space has significantly shrunk. and what this will say that you are not required to put in that parking because you are adding residential on top. those are the primarily changes and i think that is probably a good summary and i think that the commissioner has some questions and i can go into more detail if you like it as well. >> well, commissioner o'brien? >> actually, what you have elaborated on was kind of entering some of those questions. did i understand that it

effects the alcohol restrictions as well? >> right. so, the alcohol restricted use district i brought a summary of those the overhead on? okay so that is looking at the bay view and then the big blob there is the mission and the black outline is showing you where we have the various alcohol restricted use dikts districts and this is the alcohol restricted use district. these started to come about in the mid 80s and they really are variable on the... or how restricting they are and how permissive they are. >> divisadero and mission are the most restrictive. what we have seen are efforts

addressing the concerns regarding potential alcohol and often the concern is primarily liquor stores while allowing businesses to be able to make some more changes. >> in the mission, they have been considering allowing the transfer of liquor licenses which is currently prohibited. and i think that i believe that the conditions, let's see... yeah. so, relocation of an existing liquor license is currently prohibited in the mission but it allows other places by cu. and so, i think that divisadero has constraints on looking at it. keeping it in place so they would need to come before the

commission in keeping the prohition. let's see if i can find the summary. >> i think it was. yeah. >> our intention was to actually keep it consistent and to transfer it over into what was in existence now. i think that the questions that you raised previously. >> the only change, it is... upon before the use is considered abandoned for the liquor store, in all of the other districts it is a longer

period of abandonment. but it is uniquely restrictive on not... you can only abandon a use 90 days. if you are changing ownership and you need to close your business for more than 90 days to say to make ada adjustments or some other change, if your business is closed for more than 90 days then the use would be considered deactivated and the alcohol restricted use you could not react vait it. that is often not enough time to make the changes that you might need to do for a change of ownership and ada upgrades. so the supervisor is proposing to extend to 180 days which is the more standard time frame. but other than that, i think that they are keeping it in general in place. and it will lift, certain restrictions on alcoholic beverages that can be cold in small, general groceries and especially groceries in the corridor.

and she said that that is intended to address the concerns about the proliferation of the liquor source while still permitting small independently owned grocery stores that sell a variety of foods not just alcohol. and she is controlling something more contemp orary >> if there is a violation of these policies the business would be at jeopardy of losing their planning invitelements in addition to any other recourses. >> thank you. >> any other commissioners? do we have public comment on items eight and 9? >> seeing none, public comment on 8 and 9 are done. >> commissioner rilely.

>> i wanted to know if there roso has anything to add? >> i received a series of questions through your staff, about other concerns that you might have raised so i just wanted to maybe add a few more answers to some of those concerns >> i think that the good neighborhood policy is one that is of concern not just for the neighborhood, commercial district but also for safety issues, the one where it allows people or requires liquor stores to have lighting and i clean corner, there has been a recent shooting in the past 6 months that we have been concerned about. so this is something that we are seeing that we would like to see as a way to build stronger relationships with the merchants and the residents who are concerned about certain activities. in particular, there is i think

that we are going to discuss this in the future one of the areas in the fillmore is to expand the second floor to allow for the non-profit use and to engage the neighborhood to have more daytime users, because a lot of times in the other neighborhoods you don't see... it is a nighttime, point which is wonderful. but it could be more vie vibrant to have more hours ex-standed on. in general the advertisement, signs, changes, those are standard the preexisted before. we are just carrying them over. the medical canabis that was something that was also in the preexistence to and again it is just carried it over to those hours of operation. and let's see. >> residential conversions we are very concerned about this

on the second floor. this was something that we did not want to break to go back on the residential conversion band. but we did want to make sure that the spaces that didn't use the second floor for residential uses could be vibrant so we could maximize the vertical activity. so that was why this was a very, i think, innovative way to kind of look at this without going in and saying let's just make second floor use, or allow that use openly. but this is a way to kind of meet the tenants in the neighborhood as well as try to really more activate that second floor use. >> and those are basically an answer of your questions and if you have any additional ones? >> commissioner dooley. >> i wanted to know what your out reach plans were for the residents and the merchants. i assume that you will be doing a lot of out reach?

>> trying to. >> so that is another thing, one, so originally, we just really wanted this to be a basic shell. what exists now but put it into the named ncd format and in the meantime go to the out reach to the different especially the merchant association to make sure that it is not going to be negative effect which is not the purpose of this and to go out to the neighborhood association and try to get a mixture of different meetings in the neighbors to address this and just recently we are going to work with commissioner white to hopefully identify ways to strategickly activate the engagement in the fillmore district. i should... i know that the supervisor mentioned this is lower fillmore, but it is actually called the fillmore ncd, not the lower fillmore, so i want to make that distinction. because there is an upper fillmore, but this is the fillmore. but we are hoping to try to start that process up.

and this is like i said, well, we anticipate this to be at least through october to really start having neighbor and means around this issue. but if it seems like there is much more important, we are open to extending it, there not a deadline that is pushing this, it is really just to get the best community planning. and zoning and small business synergy going in each of these corridors. >> thank you. >> commissioner white. >> yes, i just wanted to say that i think that this is great. i just wanted to deal with commissioner dooley mentioned about the out reach and making sure that we do that so that we don't have any back lashes. and also, making sure that we get the name correct on these ncs. >> thank you. >> director? >> i have a question for ann

marie, rogers. >> so i know that the planning staff has taken an initial sort of look at the legislation and you said that this will likely be before the planning commission in october? >> it will not be before. around the end of october and depending upon how the supervisor feels it is going and if she is ready for a hearing at that time >> just kind of wanted to get a sense of the timing in terms of whether the commission wants to rehear it again before its final version. any other commissioner comments? >> >> commissioner white? >> i would like to make a motion for continuation for the out reach in the community. >> i want it on both items.

>> on both items >> do we have a second? >> second. >> commissioners, may i just before we take a motion, did you want to be provided a review? and actually we need to take each item separately. but did you want to have a brief review of the fillmore, the changes, the changes that will take place with the fillmore ncd controls? >> i would. >> okay. >> so why don't we take commissioner white's motion in regards to... first we need to do public comment. >> on the comment and then we will take the motion. >> we already did the public comment on both of these items. >> i already asked. >> okay. >> so then, let's hear the fillmore nc definition and then we will do the public comment and the motion on each one of

them. >> okay. >> all right so annmarie would you be able to provide some definition for the fillmore nc? or chris would you like to do that >> >> i think that i pretty much described it in general. we are keeping the controls in view with the few changes. >> i thought that it was just... you did the divisadero. >> i just described in general keeping the base ones and then just a few modifications that are generally to both dikts. the divisadero is different that it has the alcohol restricted use district and there is not a alcohol restricted use district for fillmore. >> okay. my apologize, i did not hear that distinction. >> so you want to... i already had called public comment.

>> okay. >> let's do... while we have a motion from commissioner white, but we need to hear them each separate. >> so, do we have a motion... we have a second? we can take item nine first, and then go back to item 8. >> okay. >> if you want to do this? >> i would like to make a motion for continuation on item number 9. >> okay, would this be to the october first meeting or the call to the chair? >> call to the chair. >> yeah. >> i would do the call of the chair because then we can, that way we have the flexibility to see the timing of the work that the supervisor's office is doing and then the timing that the planning staff is under going review and analysis as well. >> okay. >> and that is a motion by commissioner white. >> is there a second?

>> second. >> commissioners we have a motion to continue item 9, board of supervisor, 120814, motion to continue to the call of the chair, that motion was made by commissioner white and seconded by dooley would you like a roll call nr president? >> yes. >> commissioner adams. >> aye. >> dooley. >> yes. >> dwight. >> yes. >> o'brien. >> yes. >> white. >> yes. >> rilely. aye. >> that passes 6-0. >> and then on item number eight? >> do you want to make this the same motion on item number eight? >> yes, sure. >> i would like to make a motion to continue item number 8.

>> do we have a second? >> i will second. >> roll call? >> commissioners, you have a motion, on item eight, board of supervisors, number 1 20768, i wave a motion by commissioner white to continue to the call of the chair and seconded by commissioner rilely and motion, commissioner adams? >> aye. >> daolly. >> yes. >> dwight. ye.. >> o'brien. >> aye. >> white. >> aye. rilely. >> aye. >> passes 6-0. >> thank you. >> next item. >> commissioners, presentation and discuss on road repaving and street safety program known as the streets bond.

by greg crump. the department of public works. >> >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> hello, i'm greg crump with the department of public works. i here to give a update on the 2011 streets bond. i am going to go over the bond objectives the funding structure, the general time lines and updates on each portion of the bond. the bond is a significant improvement project with thousands of individual projects and lots of moving parts and people working on ti will try to answer any technical questions that i can at the end of this presentation and try to get through it in ten minutes, if there are any questions that i can't answer i will take them down and get

back to you. >> the 2011 repaving and street safety bond is a program that was passed by voters in november, 2011, for capitol improvements. it is broad goal is to make improvements to ensure safety and accessibility and maintain infrastructure. it is part of the ten year capitol plan. so today what i want to go through is how the first year of funding is going to be allocated and give the updates to each of the five categories of how this bond is organized. there are five categories of the bond and for the first year of funding, 76 million is allocated for these five categories. by far the largest category of work will be in the paving section. 44 million in the first year will be dedicated to repaving the streets and