living here that work here we would be able to make decisions to incline more people, create housing they want at a cross level, if possible. on the other side of the coin that was not mentioned, it may not be part of this report, but there is a percentage of people who live in san francisco and work outside of san francisco, possibly 10 to 15%. i don't know exact numbers. but this would be a focus group which would be concentrated more on the employers. find out who the employers are. and we pretty much know because a lot of them have big buses that come through san francisco. and find out what factors we could correct to have them move more of their work force here because everybody wins if you don't have people spending two hours a day traveling to and from their place of employment and not to mention the effects on the environment, but just the cost factors. but i think you can use a report like this to be a fool and help us to make our

decisions, but also formulate city policy to address some of the shortcomings. * a tool >> absolutely. >> sugaya. >> yes. is there any correlation between what we're calling p-d-r on page 16 and manufacturing which is back on page 40? >> good question. >> because it seems like -- i have to just finish my observation. >> sure. >> because on p-d-r we're down over the 2002-11 years by 26%. it went up slightly in the middle years there, in 2006 and '07. if you go back to page 40 and look at the manufacturing totals, it's pretty surprising that in 2011 we have more information jobs than we did

back in 2002. so, you don't have to answer that question now. but if, you know, i don't know if p-d-rs totally -- if manufacturing is a broader category or if it encompasses p-d-r or what the -- >> well, what might be useful now, i look at that number and see if it's a mistake or not because that does look a little odd. the difference between p-d-r and manufacturing and manufacturing is an industrial sector, economic sector. and, i'm sorry, manufacturing is an industrial economic sector. and p-d-r is actually one of our land use categories that we've created ourselves to relate employment to land use policy decisions. >> right. >> and there's a lot of manufacturing in p-d-r. >> it includes warehousing and car repair and things that are not related to manufacturing directly. >> it is interesting that under

the manufacturing category that lists north bay, east bay, including san francisco, that the san francisco employment went from 8.7 to 22 in one year. >> i mean, that sounds good to me because it diversifies the economy if that's true. >> and i think that is borne out by some of the recent discussions we've had with sf may and their members. there's a lot of new small, for lack of a better term, boutique manufacturing that is starting up in the city right now. and they are seeing their membership grow substantially largely from new companies. and it is a' having an imp there is a second discussion of p-d-r. overall 26% varies substantially by sector.

there's one sector manufacturing -- other manufacturing, i believe, where it's dropped off quite a bit, then it's picked up. so, we're kind of seeing some of the same effect there. * tech difficulty >> commissioner antonini. >> one final thing on your regional distribution. you may not have control over this. it may be drawn up by abag or somebody else. east bay, south bay and san francisco. the south bay includes san mateo and santa clara counties. i hardly think of [speaker not understood]. it's really you need a separate category for the peninsula, you know, and makes the distribution a little bit more realistic in terms of what people -- most people think about and one would assume that should be san mateo county and the south bay should be santa clara and perhaps santa cruz county, but most of the population and businesses are

in santa clara. the east bay categories and the north bay categories seem to be fairly straightforward, but the one for the south bay seems to be skewed in a way that is not really accurate and the distances from san francisco for some of the places and san mateo county are very short. so, might want to revise that. >> we'll give that some thought definitely. that would involve doing it for the whole time series. good point, well taken. thank you. >> i don't think there are any further questions. thank you. >> very good, thank you. >> commissioners, it will place you under general public comment, not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i have two speaker cards.

>> thank you. gail kale and dino [speaker not understood]. good afternoon. my name is gail cahil. i'm a former deputy city attorney for the city and county of san francisco. my husband is retired court judge cahill and he worked extensive with george wong to bring that project in on time and under budget. we're here, i mention that because of the process that will be on follow for any proposal to develop piers 30-32 and seawall lot 30. we are watching what is happening with alarm. i mentioned to you in an e-mail i wrote to you all last week my concerns about the public workshop that i could not attend, the haste with with this project is moving forward is frightening.

i did a tedv -- attend the workshop that was held this monday. my ultimate fear is all of these public workshops are being held in a way that really renders public discussion and public input essentially meaningless. not only is that not good for the first workshop, but at this workshop i was surprised we both were surprised to find not only our discussions and comments were limited by [speaker not understood] oriented questionnaire, but that through the process seated at our table was someone lobbying for the project that was supposed to be a public session to garner public input from the people in the neighborhood who would have to live with whatever is built there. this rushed process that is going to culminate in about 13 days if all goes according to schedule, with the warriors filing for environmental review on the wednesday before thanksgiving is unprecedented and it is scary. it also to our mind, the inevitable effect of not only

engendering carelessness, but it will invite litigation. we both are warriors fans. we welcome the thought if warriors come back to san francisco but only as a fair, forthright and comprehensive process which we both expected to be much more time consuming that makes sure they land in the right place and with dignity to the neighborhood. i hope that one or more of you would be interested enough in this issue to ask for some further review and report from staff on what's happening. thank you for your time. >> thank you. good afternoon, president, staff, commissioners, and members of the public. dino [speaker not understood]. it's been wonderful studying urban planning with the commission. so, thank you guys for having us. i brought a statistic, a little bit of data that the commission had touched on before. what it states is we have 6 58 cars per thousand residents in the city. it's 14th among american cities. some to note in front of us are

boston, san antonio, los angeles, and new york. new york has the lowest ratio with 4 72 cars for a thousand residents. and again, san francisco is at 6 58. it will be interesting to see how this number declines as we invest in municipal transit and how we plan with the new subway systems coming in. i'd love to take the commission on a walking tour. but with only a few minutes of general public comment, i was going to talk to you guys through a tour of the north side of o'farrell street and o'farrell street is about 24 blocks long. and it starts at grant avenue. i'm going to take the first one grant avenue and call it zero o'farrell street and there we host imporio armani. another high retail store,

macy's buildings, block to block, one is entirely macy's. across the street is the central t-line going in there, that's the union square market street stop. and then in the second macy's store there is tommy hilfiger, [speaker not understood] beauty, bakery, pink berry, beauty lapped. -- land. we hit the thai noodle house, [speaker not understood], chipotle, we're coming across the hyde 200 block, [speaker not understood], the hotel with custom designer jewelry store inside the retail space. the gift stage, lefloor nail and hair salon, fred's liquor

mart and food mart. here's where we cross mason street and hit the o'farrell parking garage which is about 300 yards long, 8 stories high, and on their retail level they have alamo, thrifty, [speaker not understood]. we have another hotel, 450 which is the building which is totally fenced off. and then 474. if we want to knock out a gateway into mid-market unction we need to address 474 o'farrell street and three blocks north to south and east to west out of mid-market. thank you, guys, have a good day. >> thank you. any additional public comment? sue hester. i was going to speak next week,

but i think what dale said about the warriors deserves to be heard. i plead with the people on this commission to request your staff to come back with a report as soon as possible about the timing of environmental review on this project. a of right now there is no application before the planning department. but they plan on having the scoping meeting at the same time as the planning commission on the 13th. i have never before had a scoping meeting for an environmental review to have to choose between attending the scoping meeting or the planning commission. and been a long time, the c-e-q-a is 1970s. so, there has never -- they have never [speaker not understood] a program. but the schedule that is being done on the environmental review is a crash course in

environmental review and you don't have any information. if you wait until after the scoping meeting is done, which is likely, you won't have any ability to effect the timing. so, please have an information report on a very soon meeting of the planning commission on how fast the environmental review is going. and whether it is advisable, legal, whatever, to count a program, the scoping meeting on any e-i-r and the planning commission. like i said, this is unprecedented in so many ways. thank you. >> any additional public comment? okay. next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place

you under your regular calendar and we'll be taking up item 5, which was taken off consent, case no. 2012.0725c, 475 eucalyptus drive, request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. i'm rick crawford of department staff. this case is a request for conditional use authorization to expand an existing residential care facility for the elderly from five beds to ten beds in the rh-1-d residential family detached district. the expanded facility would include six beds for ambulatory patients and four beds for nonambulatory patients. the project site is within a fully developed mixed use area surrounded by residential uses to the west and the north and commercial and institutional buildings to the east and the south. the facility is within the cluster of institutional uses on eucalyptus that serves as a buffer between the residential neighborhood and the shopping center. the project is an expansion of

the small residential care facility and as such is not expected to effect traffic, parking or transit operations in the neighborhood. the size of the proposed use is in keeping with the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood and the building on the site would remain residential in character with no external evidence of the use within. the department has received one comment in -- excuse me, objecting to the project because of concern about traffic and parking. the department recommends approval the project with conditions as the project promotes the provision of -- excuse me, of community-based residential care for the elderly, complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code and is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. i'd be happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. project sponsor?

my name is fernando [speaker not understood]. i am the project sponsor. this is my wife lorna. if you have any questions regarding the plan expansion or the number of beds, we would appreciate it. very much. >> thank you. we may have questions for you. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? you can have a seat for now. thank you. thank you. >> seeing no public comment, that portion is closed. commissioner moore. >> my questions are really questions to staff. adapted reuse of residential and appropriate location is a very good thing, particularly with the use that is proposed. there is one piece of information that is missing for me in this particular thing. we're talking an rh-1 house, beds from 5 to 10 is a densification which i can only judge if it is properly brought in the context of the size of the building. so, the way this is presented is

as on the consent calendar, we are approving something we don't quite know what we are approving. obviously there is a good intent of caring for ambulatory and people needing assistance. however, i think we need to know or at least have staff sign off on timeliness of densification. that is my objection. if i have this information, in addition to that i think i would like to know that the state itself, which is regulating facilities of this kind, is in support of the densification and the standards by which it can be densified can be met. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think those are good questions commissioner moore brings up. >> single-family house, a

number of bedrooms, it is being used for residential care facility right now. they feel they've got room to put in some more people and i would ask the sponsor maybe to address how they're going to arrange people within the building. but there will be -- there won't be any more people in this building than there would be if it was occupied by a larger extended family. >> i don't think that a single-family house of that vintage is designed for 10 people plus the people taking care of it. so, as a minimum, i would ask that staff provide at least a plan that shows the number of beds or speaks to a standard by which densification is possible. i'm not trying to take on the role of state licensing. but as a planning commissioner sitting here approving this, i think that information should be the standard of what the department would deliver to this commission. the fact that you are saying that it would work is not enough for me. >> i would, i guess, i'm sorry,

commissioner. >> yes. >> i would certainly be in agreement with that, not to belabor the process. because this is a consent item. i don't believe we have a floor plan of how this is -- how many bedrooms there are and how the beds -- >> actually, i do have a -- >> just wanted to add one other point here. i'm supportive of the project on another basis. it's one of two small single-family homes that are located between st. stevens church and the very beautiful contextual center that is a gym and parish hall that looked like it was built at the time of the rest of the neighborhood. its was built two or three years ago, fantastic building. [speaker not understood]. you're in an area that is almost institutionalized. so, a usage that is a little different than just a single-family there, it's permitted use, it probably fits

very well because there's less of a desire or possibility of a single-family use in that area in the more traditional sense. >> commissioner borden. >> maybe you could tell us the square footage of the house, the number of bedrooms that exist and then the number -- if you happen to know what, i guess the state code that regulates how much square footage per patient or person living there that's required. i know this is a separate certification process for them. maybe you can talk about what that means. even if we approve it here, is there then a state body that has to issue some sort of permit? >> yes, there is a state license that is required and there is a state process they have to go through after they have come through the planning commission. the building itself, it's a two-story building. there are four faith rooms on

the ground floor and three additional patient rooms on the second floor. there's a large living room area on the second floor with a kitchen. and there's also a smaller common living room space on the ground floor. so, there's seven bedrooms for 10 people. >> how about bathrooms? >> there are -- there is one full bathroom on the ground floor and one full bathroom on the second floor. so, there are two bathrooms. >> can you item me the square footage? >> i'm sorry. [inaudible], two full bathrooms on the second floor. >> do you know the square footage of the house overall, by any khans? chance? 4,000 square feet. >> and again, with the licensing requirements with the state, maybe in the future, you know, not that we have to know everything about it, but is there a standard amount of

square footage? >> [speaker not understood]. >> maybe the project sponsor can speak to that. the minimum square foot for one person is 8 feet by 10 feet. and the rooms are more than that. the rooms are -- downstairs it's 10 feet by 12 feet. the main room is -- >> is there a requirement for rooms? >> 8 by 10. >> you said you have 7 bedrooms. is there a requirement each person have their own room? >> not each person because upstairs, the three bedrooms upstairs are quite large. it can accommodate two. it's 20 feet by about 16 feet. >> that's fine. i'm just asking because i know -- i know this is assisted living is different from a hospital, one patient per room. >> assisted living is different

from residential care facility. >> right. and i guess in terms of do we know anything, i guess this is to mr. crawford. there's not -- do we check their license before -- >> yes, they are licensed. >> and there were no issues or complaints that you are aware of -- >> no, they are in good standing with the state agency. >> there were other facilities, church, et cetera in the neighborhood. are those at all relevant or related to this facility? >> they're independent of the other institutions. >> okay, thanks. >> can i add one thing to that, please? * we started running a residential care facility way back in march of 1976. >> commissioner moore. >> i would just, aside from the application [speaker not understood] next time this comes forward, i would request supportive material which speaks of square footage, number of rooms, layout, et

cetera, is given to us because we are kind of like in the gray area. there is a state licensing, but we still need to take responsibility that what we are approving is approvable. and at least a cursory review by which a physical documentation of what we are a moving has to be part of the work the department delivers to this commission a. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. move to approve. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second for approval. >> apologies, technical difficulties. commissioners, on the motion to approve, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. you are now on item 11, an informational presentation on the inclusionary housing

procedures manual. the mayor's office of housing is working on an update to the manual that may include amendments to the planning cod. >> good afternoon, again, commissioners. ann marie rodgers, department staff. this is an information only item for you today. the mayor's office of housing is going to go through this procedures manual for our inclusionary housing program. you may recall the last time the commission adopted this was in 2007 and you are the only body for the city of san francisco that does this adoption action. you will hear a little bit about the presentation, about the -- from the mayor's office and so why don't i turn it over to them. it's daniel adams from the mayor's office and [speaker not understood] will give the presentation today. >> thank you, ann marie. dan, [speaker not understood]. thank you for this opportunity to present an update to our procedures manual. it is -- represents a

documentation of best practices and lessons learned over the last five years. it reflects input from consumers, from stakeholders, from developers. we're excited to be able to present it today. i'm going to turn it over to chan drab eagan from our office to go over the key issues, modifications that have been made and call those out for you. i did want to make clear this does not include updates that will result from the recently passed housing trust fund. the modifications here do not conflict with those future adjustments nor do they complicate those future adjustments, but they are not included at this time. so, we will be coming back at a later date with adjustments to the inclusionary program that will result from the passage of that ballot initiative. as was mentioned, this is an informational hearing only. we are here to present, to hear your feedback. we'll be returning at a later date to solicit your approval of the procedures manual as

well as approval of some conforming legislation. some of the modifications do require adjustment to the planning code that requires legislation. that legislation has been drafted but is yet to be introduced. i believe we'll be coming back in december to finalize the approval of the procedures manual as well as to review and approve the conforming legislation. so, chan drab will call out which pieces, modifications are going to require legislative action. * chandra thank you again for your consideration and i'll turn it over to chandra. >> [speaker not understood], i'm due in a week-and-a-half and i need to sit at this point. my name is chandra eagan and i'm from the mayor's office of housing and i've worked on the inclusionary housing program for the last six years. so, i was here for the last procedures manual update in 2005. i was also with my first child at that point. so, this must be what i do to get ready for that.

the inclusionary housing program as i think you all know became a part of the planning code in 2002. it's a city-wide program that requires developers to pay an affordable housing fee, but then build deeply affordable housing. or if it qualifies for the options they can build their units on-site or off-site. most recently we have land dedication as an option in eastern neighborhoods. that's been really exciting in taking a lot of our attention. so, today as dan adams mentioned, we're here to talk about the update to the manual that implements the code. so, we have a manual that's grown over time and has become more refined and it's been really exciting to work on it in the last year or so, actually a couple of years. because as dan mentioned it is a culmination of the last five years of learning about the program. we've had really stable staff over the last five years. we've had really vocal renters and buyers. this is a response mostly to

consumer input and consumer questions, the need foremore transparency, the need for more questions to be answered, the need for the process to be more explicit. so, we feel like we've created a manual that is now very, very user friendly. i think we'll get smarter as we implement it and take some feedback from the public. and then alongside that there are a few issues that respond to developer concerns. however, the main focus of this manual is to respond to consumer concerns. the primary area in which we addressed developer concerns as much as fleshing out the land dedication itself in eastern neighborhoods. so, we were charged with setting up the rules and processes for that. and we have a few pages, maybe three or four even in the manual that is a result of months and months of conversations about such. and then we