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 ground floor sorry i was lost for a minute and commissioner antonini. >> i'm going to make a motion to improve that exclude staff's

recommendation and exclude the following language all the time section 3 of page 7 to read section 3 effective date symshall be effective thirty days with the amendment to section 402 shall not political to projects in haven and site or building permit required to do 201-800 not including floor space principally added as accessory and added underground. >> dough hear a second? >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i

personally am not going to second that on that particular exemption for projects on van ness sud it sounds like senator edwards office is going to take that under advertise minded and senator edwards office could a work on their language i'll make a motion if we need to look at the analysis to see if there's a good backing behind and conducting the ground floor parking for the impact fee services i want to have it explicit in our recommendation when you do that analyze whether it's part of the looking at the impact fees or other sorts of assessment that's a question for director ram and depending on the answer saw i know the answer we'll look at it in the context

of the updates to the nexus analysis when i believe are done every 5 years in state law i think that is important to remind there's an explicit assumption the parking is servicing the use of impact so i think i will caution that suddenly we get a lot more impact fees because the impact fee on the square feet basis is less than 34u789d by a bigger number you know what i mean it is built into the assumptions when we look at the impact analysis that's my only word of caution i can't specifically is that will happen >> okay. just a couple of things. >> commissioner wu pursue i agree with that sentiment about

the direction i want to ask the city attorney can we recommend the supervisors office recommended some grandfathering or along in the - you i think it is up to the commission make the recommendation and leave the details to the supervisor or include a detailed recommendation. >> commissioner moore i'd like to recommend to the supervisors that quite recently we've approved a number of projects and projects in the pipeline and caution we're not creating two of confusion about the subject matter but have basically support this commission has been doing on a number of projects.

>> commissioner antonini. >> oh mr. johnson did you want to comment. >> legislative aid to supervisor breed are you suggesting there are other areas we want to look at grandfathering for current projects. >> not one we've done a lot of work where it's critical indeed the special van ness special district in the department off the top of my head has caused us and reminds us of others i'll appreciate but i can't think of others. >> okay. >> i will make sure we double check with planning staff in drafting that amendment. >> it should look positive and suggestive rather than vindictive and past the fact that's what i think we need 80 do. >> commissioner antonini. >> so i'll make another motion

i'll support approval with moifktsdz presented bid staff and ask supervisor breed office to work with the gentleman to say if it's appropriate to include the suggestive legislation in regards to the project on van ness special use district. >> we don't need. >> - okay. what we're talking about. >> commissioner antonini if i understood your motion you're making a motion to approve with modifications but outside of the motion itself you're making a request. >> a finding. >> oh part of the finding then i understood. >> we should work together and see what happens. >> i would suggest. >> i'll make another motion.

>> commissioner johnson. >> i max make a motion to recommend the legislation with moifthsz with the finding that supervisor breed office look at the exemption for certain projects on the van ness sud and review in the future the impacts of including ground floor parking in the square area gross skoonl for the calculation of fees. >> if you want to include that second finding that's fine it is not just ground floor there are parking on more than ground floor. >> i'll leave it out. >> soleave out the second finding and i didn't get that

(laughter). >> you said exemption but grandfathering clause. >> so it's grandfathering so restating my motion i think i got it make a motion to remedy the legislation with moifthsz with the findings supervisor london breed's office amended the sud and okay. >> okay. is it mendable. >> commissioner moore the by line there are no other areas other than areas that are effected commissioner thokz that providing that supervisor london breed office look into a clause

along the van ness coordinate. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 12 for case - thank you. >> mrauth i plymouth use conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon michael smith planning staff the project proposed e proposes to for about a second-story dwelling dwell in the ocean view neighborhood and to construct in its place a third-story mixed use building the proposed building go have 3 dwelling units and off-street parking and tenants and use yet to be determined the property contains the

remnants of a second-story dwelling constructed in 2005 the building is vacant and the city records are indicating the building is authorized to be a second-story typically between 9 square feet of habitable area the city has noting not received public comment and to approve the project are conditions we believe it will add 4 family sized dwelling units to the horsing stock and creates a small commercial space ideal for simon's and make use of an underutilized blighted property and lastly no tenants will be displaced by this project that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions

questions. >> project sponsor please. >> you have a 10 minute presentation. >> mr. smith said everything there was to say i don't have anything else to add. >> opening it up for public comment if any seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner moore i want to congratulate the 0 folks for doing something as bold particularly there utilized properties to be used to address the questions we ask every, with a great idea approve or disapprove i have to ask for a couple of minor provisions having to do with what we see on page 8 to 1 something about

parking the way this drawing is shown it actually given the width of the garage door doesn't allow 3 parking spaces to function particularly when there're access to the outdoor ear and if you have, in fact, bicycle parks for a 8 bikes it's across the dimension streams doesn't allow the functions with each other so i want to suggest the 5 mixes of the garage door is not necessary a garage is a garage but it says that could potentially be used as another commercial space that's not what we're approving today, i suggest we move the garage door and take the side light out