am or some workshop in which someone explained the building would have been an opportunity for me to say this is a great opportunity i'm a little bit on the fence this is missing and unfortunately undermines my support for this. >> commissioner richards and i'm in sxhaerment with commissioner wu not having consistency and letting it take its own shape for obvious reasons. >> commissioners we have a motion and second for approval with staffs modifications shall i call the question. >> retail. >> yeah. we agreed that the retail we recommend that the retail be included he understand that the peripheries will take

our comments and decide whether or not to combine the two. >> including the retail component. >> retail is part of what we're recommending whatever it brought up. >> understood. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm hearing a split on the question of the standard what is put forward is staffs recommendation so i don't know if you want to look at changing the motion or have the split and could you look at the two differences of the justifications why their recommended please and so to explain two different scenarios one district 3 allows one unit in smaller escaped building lens 5 units and no cap on number of adu for larger sized building are more than 5 units and so in

those cases the number of of adu's are limited by factors the fact that adu needs to be within the envelope and not take away from the residential unit and the idea that is in compliance with the way the approach that the city has had towards the formulated factors controlled in the city and encourage to you know use this space more focusly not enough space to add additional units to use that space. >> i guess maybe supervisor wiener may i ask when the castro legislation was proposed the numerous limits were put in place to ease it in or i understand where we're going with the long maximum efficiency

why were those limits in place. >> i think that was just you know our own - it was the very first time it was being done so we were a little bit more caution but now we had multiple steps and we've only had a few applications in the handbook just came out we've had inquires from people but you know, i thought it was clear it is not for people that have concerns this is a gradual thing over time so whatever the limits are. >> i'm okay b with standardization. >> can i say one thing about retail it was never the intention to try to convert retail into housing i know there are

controls in existence not to mention the higher rent per square feet then residential there are areas in the city where you have a residential area and there souz or used to be a housing unit now commercial slightly complicated but we'll all agree no converted retail and commissioner antonini. >> my motion remains the same to make the amendments uniform and conversion of retail. >> secondary. >> no, i was who was the secondeder. >> commissioner johnson. >> she's okay with that okay. >> already commissioners just to reiterate the motion motion is to do you want the recommendation for approval with

the modifications recommended by the staff as well as a prohibition an retail conversion commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards commissioner wu no commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 about commissioner moore and commissioner wu voting against. >> commissioners that will bring us back to item 13 for the case pca in violation of the code correction ordinances a planning code amendment. >> playing music chairs here good afternoon, commissioners aaron planning department staff today, we're asking you to initiate an ordinance to correct

the errors that repealed in the reorganization update the code and make non-substantial code to clarify the text since the packets went out the city attorney has amended it by additional clerical errors and amended the title to better reflect the ordinance staff a.d. park with cu when was inadversarial deleted in they organization and a amendment to the planning code to make at planning code consistent with the city's charter action before the commission is the initiation of the initiation did not involve a substance of the amendment it only requires the 20 day notice period the commission may take action other

than the codes amendments the staff will talk about that i've given the commission secretary of the revised ordinance but minor additions as well as adding parking lot back to the district that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> okay any public comment on this item? item 13. >> there's one sorry. >> rose hill son. >> overhead please.

i have zero minutes at the moment. >> you have 3 rose. >> thank you very much good afternoon, commissioners again for what is the fourth time rose hill son what you see on our screen and bundle of papers the existing planning code that has a difference of rh1 railway exceeding 35 feet in height and rh2 unusual not exceed 40 feet in height and the proposal the exist 209 table shows buildings can't be taller than 35 and rh240 feet in the proposed table there's a change no portion of a dwelling maybe telethon than a building in rh1 and many of the organizations within coalition met together

with planner star and director ram and a bunch of people in the hallowed halls of mist we agents on the paralleled structures for a reason i know that is initiation today but if so it is non-substantive this is the non-restricted substantive change i want to see that's all i have to say on that matter. >> is there any additional public comment? and good afternoon. my name is are still paul weber as rose appointed we had back and forth investigated series of working sessions with the staff an article 2 and we were under the

impression i thought staff said this reflected the article within the last 12 months we complimented each other on the great job and cooperative and this comes along and frankly this seems to go beyond a reasonable doubt the framework we thought we agreed to last year i hope you'll respond to roses comments positively >> thank you. >> yes. marilyn coalition of san francisco neighborhoods we the talk about this earlier in the year with the coalition and we would like to have further dialog on this issue thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? okay. not seeing any public comment is closed. >> commissioner johnson.

>> thank you very much ms. hill son your attention to detail is staten island i think i appreciate it and the staff appreciates it with an initiation with a long process staff will be receptive to changes and corrections with the planning code being the he met all eyes are necessary we can simplify and correct you know in an efficient manner hopefully more collaboration i make a motion to accept. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm in favor i would ask the staff to look at it to make sure all the corrections are correct and whatever else yeah mr. star. >> if i may speak to this one

item it was piloted to me i'm not sure of the code one of the ones listed in the sections? not buildings that maybe turn around 35 feet but dwellings may not be so that's why i made the change not to secure vent the process so technically a school or a hospital or something can be 40 feet in an rh1 district but a dwelling cannot but i'm happy to talk to the coalition of the neighborhoods for that and i want to reiterate you need to schedule august for your meeting. >> yes. the motion maker was the on or after august 16th. >> i'll call all out. >> august 13th you i strongly

recommend you don't do august 13th unless a time restriction aaron i would recommend august 16th. >> there are important changes to be made and the further you delay it the longer right now it will take until november for those changes to become effective. >> commissioners you have a steel busy calendar in august and until september 3rd a joint hearing will be closed september 10th has been filled up quickly as a result we can also add. >> i would say i retired a spot on august 13th. >> maybe it is on there. >> i see it august 13th. >> wow.

>> is it on there. >> i apologize i apologize august 13th it is commissioner moore. >> mr. star to close the circle director sent a letter which i forwarded to you have you a close circle and clear. >> yeah. i was going to follow up one more time to clarify with her. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> oh i'm sorry i support august 13th unless i hear other authorities on the calendar we have a full agenda it was on there i'd rather not going to the fall with the agenda. >> very good commissioners there is a motion and a second to initiate and schedule a hearing commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards

commissioner wu commissioner fong so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places us on item 16 cu a on van ness street a request for conditional use authorization please note on may 21st the commission directed the sponsor to look at retail spaces and continues to july 2nd by a vote of 7 to zero and on july 2nd the commission approved an intent to disagree with the option for the project sponsor to look at the retail activation and continue the matter until

today. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of

the board the item before you a request for a confusion for the proposed project on the ground floor of an existing 5 mixed use building on van ness street the mixed use has 18 dwelling units above the vacant and a below grade parking garage with 18 parking spaces the project site is locate open 79sdz northeast corner of valencia and 20th street within the van ness transit zoning district and a 55 height and bulk it is psyching conditional use authorization in the van ness street zoning district per planning code additionally the project is eco conditional use authorization to allow the modifications of the planning code for non-residents use to occupy more than san

francisco use of linear street in the van ness street m t c zoning district on may 21st the committee look at the medical use occupying 71 hundred square feet on the subject site on may 21st the project sponsor also proposed a smaller relative component within the lobby waiting area upon review the planning commission requested the project sponsor put in retail spaces and also to conduct further negotiation and outreach with the community stakeholders in response to the commissioners outreach the prototype project was modify on july 2nd it was to establish a new male use occupying 6 thousand 7 hundred plus square feet and fronting on van ness 3

hundred and 25 skate square feet it was a approved but offered the option to the project sponsor to roadways revise the item was continued until july 16th project sponsor today has modified the project for your consideration and proposes a micro component on the haven all of the evidence facade the project sponsor has sense made provisions including in the packet you've received so those are revised plans since july 2nd the department has two letters in opposition to the project owe two letters in support of project therefore in total the department has 14 letters in opposition and 29 in support of the project to date

of the 3 letters received one letter was included in the packet received and 3 letters after the packets were delivered i've submitted them to you today. >> for the reason the project sponsor has provided the - the commission can preceding the project sponsor has prepared a presentation presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you project sponsor please. commissioners? the third time how many times do we afford the project sponsor. >> 5. >> very good. >> so excited about the time. >> you don't have to use it all if you don't want to

(laughter). >> listen thank you very, very much for our time and hearing us on the 3rd time before you i want to thank you for the fantastic suggestions you've made last time we were here we've been able to incorporate those suggestions into the plan as you can see there we go and i think you have it in front of you, we have sense we originally submitted to you in february we have added 2 hundred and 25 square feet retail spaces on the van ness side and expand to 3 hundred and 25 square feet and add a dedicated door into this retail space we've add an additional 9 hundred micro square feet on van ness and what this does it gave us a very,

very vibrant street presence which is something that the commissioners wanted as you can see here a micro retail zone is proposed along the van ness frontage near the middle of the building elevation framed by the active work of murals and placed in an out coffee that creates an outdoor marketplace people can read a magazine or have a cup of coffee we've expand the retail that flanks go that out coffee that makes the retail space appear larger than it is piano depending on if it is lease as a magazine or flower stand we know

know given the increasing rents we hope that can broadly push the impersonator or the concept to serve the immediate neighborhood needs as a designation and a rile nice walking zone for pedestrians this diagram shows more clearly how vibrant and beautiful it looks and we're asking for our approval to move forward with bringing health care to this neighborhood there's more times left. >> plenty of time open up for public comment

(calling names). >> i'm not david but i'm elizabeth so i'll take it. >> a minute really? i would appreciate two minutes as a representative of the neighborhood association and preservation in process we as neighbors represent this in that amount of time thank you. i live in liberty hill this location has been presented served the underserved the group choose this location to serve the underserved in the services master plan issued bit the san francisco health commission and this planning department in 2013 the ideal of serving the

underserved is central to their argument the neighborhood residents that invited them to a meeting in may this neighborhood is under sefrld relied on by this sutter group appropriately served throughout including the important definition underserved and served population while responsibly for the citywide data the task force purposed its work on the san francisco population currently underserved or inappropriately underserved the neighborhoods are those which data indicates are disproportionately unified with the health and disparities a high disease rate and mortality and lack of insurance or

socioeconomic status the affirmation of underserved written by this planning department if apply to this location not people that meet the definition in group said they want to serve this group will be better served in the heart of the mission in the excelsior in bayview where people have health impacts they definitely do not have at 20th and van ness thank you very much much. >> commissioner president fong one minute. >> i think we've allowed for two public comment open this item. >> thank you, commissioner commissions i'm stephen a resident of lexington street and

disproof of that although sutter made concessions it is still outsized for the approved project 5 years ago and feels slightly over the 75 feet of allowable retail we would ask that the commission look at one or two bays more that commissioner hillis once express about 8 weeks ago we talked about before about different because of looking at the project sideways or u awe asked you it is the right program but on the wrong floor in the wrong building i think that people take accelerators with children i the it with my

own area aches and so forth it is all on the wrong floor we wish it wasn't but it is one of the urban design or architecture issues you can kind of look at on straight on people look at van ness street from all even the i's even global cities what works and not 18 van ness worked truly independence and hopefully, you'll use that model going forward with 20th and van ness. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello my name is david representing the valencia corridor association we strongly oppose the program after reviewing the latest revision is just not in

keeping with what the space was designed for that and conditionally approved from f for we oppose it thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is nick i'm with liberty hill we believe that this we disapprove of the change in the permitted do not grant the conditional use space should be used for multiple businesses consistent with character of the neighborhood

there is a vibrant business community on that street and this will change that by making the first floor to be operated by a single business instead of the multiple businesses throughout valencia street i wish you would keep in mind prop m and enforce the consistency of the neighborhood character this will violate. >> good afternoon commissioner lisa president of the liberty hill neighborhood association again pretty much what has been said at the last couple of hearings has been said i'd like to reiterate the real concerns