one that which is read into the record it was interesting but i think there is more commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i would agree with much of what commissioner moore said it looks like alternative 4 would be close to the historic preservation commission was talking about pa partial preservation alternative it seems to reverse 55 okay. and separates the buildings to some degree but there might be further ramifications or alternatives that preservation alternative that might be worth discussing and responses to comments to see what we were actually interested this is an important building and all those

new buildings along market p will dominate the area we have districts near that and east vail and the civic center although this is only the massing study that comes in the eir it is important that be careful articulated and present in some such a way to be as what is existing oftentimes a building can be designed in such a way by the materials that are commentary and make the building less offensive and we have a very good architect on this project i know that is a later stage but as far as the analysis the area that probably needs

more attention is the preservation alternative commissioner johnck's. >> i actually left my eir in my airplane bag but i'll cover the major points and send an e-mail i agree which iowa the commissioners have said i'm looking for this building in context to all the developments that have been mentioned how it will sit. >> what it looks like some type of a 3-d architecture in the pipeline will be helpful i have a question we've mentioned those kinds of comments on 133 golf with the wind effects and the traffic and you'll the elements this is something we've been put on record on another eirs one

thing that struck me house conclusions were drawn on the ability of 57 or 68 units i come from the upper market there are projects all the time being built so how and where difficult financial conclusion and how financing will not be available this concerns me i said where those comments came from i mentioned this on 1455 or other addresses on pine we mention the block structures i have no context if i go to support a project i don't understand how many there are left you talked in the eir about the 1 on pine street being concocted down ross the last two

left in the city i don't know i really want to understand if there's any date available how many structures are left with many multiples. >> i support an additional preservation alternative agency the fcc asked for the way things in my mind leading i'm leaning towards a preservationists on the project thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to oppose one additional challenge it goes hand in hand with one alternative i'd like to see a project that functions without agreeing gating parcels your basically only maximizing what is in the most extreme potential development on the land two

tying two that independent structures is setting a precedent you're setting a north-south wall effect and the clumsy massing on serves the person that builds the building and it creates a lot of problems i want to see a clear jurisdiction in the eir why for this particular project; right why the aggregate. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i think the other commissioners have talked about the building alternatives prosecute pretty well i'll focus on the transportation and the market aortic that plan that called for the open space improvement to make oak street two ways it is currently depicted as one way in the eir and i think that this

seriously impacts the calibration issues that were mentioned before because it means that in order to get to the parking you have to come in avenue off of van ness and in many cases alleviates the calibration impacts i want a discussion why that is not included as part of the interpretation assessment and great to see that updated in the final hearing. >> commissioner richards. >> one last question pawar laying on commissioner moore on the plan again, i don't have my material business owner but one of the things we worked on with the planning department comp to discourage the combination of lots we have 20 lots combined with more than 10 thousand square feet we didn't want to

have in the market octavia plan so i'm trying to understand why in the spirit of everything we tried try to do in the plan. >> commissioners that concludes in item i believe you'll be taking a break. >> we'll take a lunch break thank you. >> good afternoon and week to the planning commission regular meeting for february 26, 2015 that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind please silence all electronic devices that may sound off commissioners we left off in your regular calendar on item 11 pca off-street parking this is a

planning code amendment and i'm going to present an ordinance to provide additional flexibility to the off-street parking but before i do that i'd like to allow time for supervisor breed office to present. >> thank you mr. brown elective aid to the president board of supervisors supervisor breed i was saying my presentation was 6 or 7 minutes go long longer than than i hoped there are a lot of pieces i want to go through one one-on-one quickly this is a small set of planning code changes kwh when is for a long time the city had minimum parking requirement they were required to provide parking this

lead to a lot of destruction of the barbara garcia or parking garages as well as park pads in the use of building first stories for retailer parking in the past decade a request are for more green space the city has asked for more tandem and lifts and staircases are permitted and minimum parking requirement for the walkable neighborhoods is racked it is effective and important to point out they don't limit the ability to park it gives people nor option so builders and homeowners can have a say of parking on their property the legislation allows conversion of the street in front and the

conversion of free space to other uses and minimize the bike lanes and helps to restore front yard and backyard and the g f a limitations 0 how much square footage people can build yet currently outside of rh3 so there is limits on housing space or other spurs but not parks you may convert those spaces to other uses other city policies courage ground floor activity but g f a force people to use ground floors as parking why force it to be used as parking do we want to prioritize jobs

ero parking this makes above ground parking towards a gross square feet area but underground will be exempt this can you remember people to put parking 200 underground and existing buildings will convert unused spaces for parking second the legislation gives for flexibility in the r m district but allowing the spaces if you're following along on mr. sanchez report it is the same so third, the legislation gives the zoning administrator the short administratively remove an off-street parking requirement as well as the reservations are being followed the city has lowered or addressed permanent

exemption equip rfp so it is easier to shed the requirements last year, it exempt the regulations if their sole street frontage is on a bike path it only gives people the option not to build so on the district 57 for example, can turn their homes into more homes and this provision reduce the provision on the transit los angeles and conceiving the safety for bicyclists and this refrigerates the minimum parking spades important the rear yard or backyard this is before the backyard so many owners paid for the off-street parking if bias or prejudice people want to keep

those this legislation will help them to restore part find their backyards and this will allow people have option and improve bicycle safety and restore green spaces and rear yards i do want to briefly i don't mean to get ahead of the process busy want to preempt that by saying he did an outstanding job of coming up with important points they're appreciative of his analysis to go through it his recommendations the c a may reduce our requirement absolutely great idea certainly last one in the code and suggested the term bike pathway i'm not sure i understand but it seem logical we're on board as

well and suggested exempting g f a dloetdz to off-street parking from the capital populations we agree with this it's a conversation beyond the scope of this conversation you could make a policy argument we shouldn't be in7-elevens but certainly a conversation with we agree with mr. sanchez and want to say we're looking at to grandfather projects that have simpleminded their applications to the selma the memento amendment is in process but if we preceded to the planning commission the conditionally permitted accessory permitting will be

smubt - subject to the gpa i'm going to turn it over to mr. sanchez. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. connor one question about the 25 foot sidewalk rule can you explain that, please. >> you know i think it is better if i defer to mr. larkin's that is a logical comment the policy derivative was a lane the 25 foot sidewalk is not one we initiated. >> maybe mr. sanchez can explain. >> thank you connor to rehereby the department's recommendation to add text to section one hundred 61 to codify in any with

a reduction by the zoning administrator through 7 h we on the advice of the sfmta we're proposing a change bicycle pathway to bike lanes not just bike pathway like golden gate park and mr. johnson referred the current nexus study do not take into account g f a with off-street parking to change the basis of oozing how those fees are calculated would facility a new nixon nexus study to effected parties this ordinance didn't mention the impact fees will again be another conversation we talked it will

be the time of the publication i received public comments and have e-mailed copies in reference to the exemption for projects in the van ness su d and if i may conclude to answer commissioner moore's question about the 25 foot parking this is actually in place under planning code section 1 61 b an exemption for off street loading across the sidewalks the supervisors is going to ask for off-street parking as well in your packet as part of the page 6 ordinance on line 5 so if i'm understanding this ordinance correctly in the instance where there is property that sold access across a wide sidewalk at 25 feet with more

the zoning administrator will be able to wave the off-street parking requirement like the loading requirement that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions. >> opening it up for public comment good afternoon, commissioners i want to speak buyout potential k3wr5rg9 in the special use district the reason that is a peculiar situation alike other residential district and in the event there's no strict f ar limit when the district was created the problem with the legislation in december the

requirement for off-street parking in the van ness special use district went down from 1 to the 1.500 this legislation will if not amended require a fair amount of f ar limited to be allocated to off-street parking and would reduce the number of far devoted to housing this grandfathering provision will probably only apply to a couple of projects in the pipeline that are having ground parking about a ratio of 7.5 or less not count against far so the housing didn't need to be reduced to account for the loss of far that's a complicated reason and the reason for the property grandfathering provision i've handed out to you i've talked with tom with the office to

write the legislation and been in contact with the supervisors this makes sense with a small class of projects in the that i'm in the zoning district i'd like to you favorably consider that this makes sense and we're supportive. >> thank you is there any additional public comment okay public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you so just really quickly we're talking about the changes in the planning department and suggested the amendment to include van ness so mountain valley pipeline my reading it cummings ground floor uses other than parking because the policy argument is that if you have to pay if fsz that is your first floor is included in the calculation then e then using it

for commercial or open space is a hunch higher proposition than parking would that be a correct reading of the policy argument for i didn't would want to include first floor parking calculations. >> diego from staff we want to include the ground floor to have commercial or stiffly street we have a lot of design goals that can be accomplished if there was not off-street parking garage on the ground floor if he can enincentive other policy goals it will met other city goals as needed. >> great given i have two quick questions we'll get through this quickly only this suggested

amendment exempting projects in the van ness sud those projects have spurred the amendments they have their ground if we didn't you know recommending recommend this amendment their grounding parking would not be the recommended legislation; is that correct i'm not understanding- >> if you locate our parking at ground floor or above it counts as far it will count with respect to the second or third-story if i'm understanding the concern their going forward with what is conditionally allowed so 7.57 above they'll have to dedicate far if i'm understanding the public comment

this is an unaccepted change in their perfume design. >> okay. i guess i'm - okay other incarnations may have questions if we have time we'll come back to that generally speaking i've supportive this goes more towards the viability of the incentive so; right? so do we of the find that underground parking works for most projects this is more of a general question most of the time we see the off-street parking included in the multiply use building the ground floor is part of the planning if we were to incentivize other parts of the ground floor do we see less

ground parking it is less expensive than trying to put it what is the cost benefit are we really going to see the change we want to see by incentive vision zero ground parking. >> the department knows ground parking a costing so the thought if we provide flexibility and we're hoping that will happen. >> we haven't done any cost benefit analysis not a study to say we've looked at x to the effect but i think what we're trying to do is offers flexibility we think it will happen but we don't have the cost benefit financially analysis to back up that. >> okay. i guess i wonder if we're begin projects the project

sponsor does their market research and they'll royals a return if they come up with the maximum allowable parking i wonder if they're not going to pay the impact fee for parking you mention what i mean. >> they may also elect to put residential units there i don't have the financial analysis to see what the residential unit will not count against the eir. >> okay. so those are my questions for new now. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i like this legislation it allows per diems a flexible to be still make choices whether or not they want to have parking in their opinion it is most directed as existing parking in the past a ground floor that could be converted to

better uses attachment to allow them to convert that parking to you know housing or other uses other than the ground floor we're encouraging more in the past there were more of a tendency to put parking on ground floor we had those problems with how the 0 mask it original projects you'll look in and see that parking not attractive and other projects where blank walls were put up to mask if that also was not attractive i'm supportive of the amendments including the ones by the gentleman to grandfather a lot of those projects or almost all of them have put their projects together and time period to actually have those

built for approval i'm not quite sure mr. sanchez they have to be under construction or approved during the period of time for two years. >> are you referencing the exemption all these yes. the amendment. >> at this time i'm a little bit unclear our position it came in after we haven't formulated. >> maybe i can ask the gentleman to explain it. >> mr. johnson board legislation aid to london breed our office has not drafted anything i can give you a sense of where we're headed in the application is submitted and they preceded from the date of legislation the grandfathered will apply.

>> basically have to have an politician and to years to get the approval and the approval date is the measuring point of two years from the time the mayor sizes up it into law. >> that's what we're thinking. >> it makes sense to me a lot of those projects are in existence and already planned and in you'll see legislation the option exists whether or not to have parking or not and try to change it at this point promotions that are in the pipeline is not good to do it is aimed at the fine-grained areas of president breed is aiming at in my estimation packing wouldn't be undergo areas of bike lanes on big streets there are lots of curb cuts and you know areas of

parking that is part of the almost every project is not part of the issue i'm supporting the legislations and the recommendations of staff and the recommendation by the gentleman. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you mr. sanchez can you ask about the impact fee registration can you give me and then example now and after the legislation is the impact fees are a connection. >> so the issues that are you currently impact fees are not devoted to off-street parking if we changed the definition or the basis how we calculated the impact fees it's not clear if the nexus study and he affordable fees absorb that this is a question -

>> i think to clarify the impact fees are based on floor and parking is included. >> even though gross that floor areas should be like an agnostic term does that matter the use. >> in are a sense the impact fees are based on impact uses that's why we're raising the flag of the nexus. >> okay. >> commissioner johnson and okay. so i think i got it now are we saying that right now we will have to redo the impact fee analysis because as parking on the ground floor it counts as part of ground floor areas if the legislation passed we don't have the data to support that ground floor parking has the same impacts as other types of