comment? seeing none we'll close. >> item 8, adjournment >> we are adjourned. thank you. >> regular hearing for thursday, september 10, disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner wu

commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner richards commissioners, that places you under your agenda is items proposed for continuance items 1 ab for the case bryant street large project conditional use authorization are proposed for indefinite continuance and item 2 c on summertime set skwufgs conditional use authorization is also proposed for indefinite continuance i have not other items proposed for continuance and there are no speaker cards any public comments for the 3 items proposed for continuance not seeing any public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards move to continue items one ab, 2. >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue items one and two. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under our consent calendar back to you and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 3 case no. 2014 - at barn very well avenue conditional use authorization and item 4 mission street conditional use authorization let me see if that is a request

to speak. >> okay any public comment on item the two items on the consent calendar not - sure. >> my name is david the 1 on mission street. >> if you want to speak to it we'll pull it off of consent and we can hear it for the regular calendar later and i understand. >> are you opposed or in support. >> i want to make a comment if i knew the address of 15 and mission between 15th and mission. >> further out. >> much further out. >> i live in the mission that's okay. >> if - iceland sit down. >> i wanted to make sure if you're not opposed then maybe we'll take action and submit

your comment under general public comment. >> that will work. >> not seeing any on the public comment commissioner moore. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve items under consent calendar for items three and four. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under commission matters item 5 considerations of adoption of draft minutes for august 15, 2015. >> any public comment on item draft minutes not seeing any public comment is closed. is closed commissioner wu. >> move to approve draft minutes. >> do i hear a second. >> second. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the

minutes. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 6 commissioner questions or comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> well 3 things briefly first of all, a lot of us are interested in things that had oriented in san francisco one in the green sheet this week angelo hank who grew up in san francisco went to galileo and played at stanford university oriented the one hand shop and one jump shop basketball everyone throw the ball understated footed and second thing is scott wiener supervisor wiener as initiated discussion of a master plan for subways for

the future of san francisco which is long overdue it smells we're doing things push and pull and even if the funding is not there for this type of thing important to have a blue print that considers where the best places are we're a dense small city and every other dense small city in the world as transit in its own right-of-way sproirp and we're having this expedition between buses and pedestrians and cars on the surface we need a plan i'm no total agreement of what he's talking about and third article recently heard that there was going to be an auction foyer parcel f which was a transbay parcel that hoped to bring up to $200 million in an open option a day or two before

a number thought possible are parties that were going to do bid pulled out of the auction one reason state there's fear about not getting an entitlement after paying a couple of million dollars for a parcel the fear of prop m limitations you might be stuck with something with in entitlement or detailed quite a few of the years we have to address this soon bus as you've read we need a lot more for the transbay terminal to be competed and we'll need considering more in the terms of billion dollars to have the are transbay the extension from caltrans to the terminal to make it whole this funding it is important and we've good neighbor policy got to be able to relieve the fear

and come up with a solution a prop m increase obviously before the voters with consideration. >> i know the to the be careful you're not supporting a measure. >> i don't think there was that measures this is somethings before us the proclaiming discussion so. >> prop m. >> okay. >> okay. well anyway long story short we need to deal with this issue in the future that's my comments. >> commissioner richards. >> a couple of things i saw the advanced calendar and on october 15th a market octavia you want i want to we've been talking about the eastern neighborhoods update and maybe we mixed them up or the eastern neighborhoods is coming up on the calendar maybe a eastern

neighborhoods versus market octavia. >> they're both on there. >> anybody understand what a ted egon report is is it out. >> yep. >> it is out not in its final form but a graft not issued the final report yet. >> as soon as he does we'll get it to you. >> will we see the draft i'd like to take a look a couple of things we've getting gotten a couple of letters in relationship in the long meetings the ones that go 12 hours i think two or three letters the gist we sit here all day and a lot of people fall off and leave by the time we get to hear the project and not the due process of getting up here and speaking it's been hours and hours and hours another question

one wrote can we budget the meetings maybe a goal of normal eight or ten hours to try to manage the time it brultd i think sitting up here when the air conditioning is off and making an informed decision maybe this is something this commission or is rules committee to have a time management two or three other quick unrelated things we've heard about change happening in the city and we always bemoan the fact this and that place closed and others eagle closed but the rezoning question how much did you effect it they say i used to go once every x number of months my response how can they stay in

business with the costs this past week we have the hotel buffet and sunday no longer the demand fell off for the hundred dollars brunch not enough people going so hard question i asked my friends they personally for me since 1997 so you start putting those things together you'll have to frequent those place to for them to stay in business the intersection for the arts has a show 925 mission the 5 m project opened until october 15th and i haven't been there this is a really, really great project great thing to look at it is the face of

neighborhood we're actually approving project go to the october 18th and lastly interesting best in class example up in palm springs i was in a rental property for a week when we showed up at the door was the good neighbor policy i think perhaps we'll put one together for whatever form of rental units the first one was no music in the backyard we actually abated by the rules and those houses saying no shorelines we can look at it and have a part of the program when people registration for short-term rentals. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i received a letter regarding the lateness of our meetings the comment i like to add i think we have to anytime

to ourselves we get tired with having to sit here and do equal justice for each project in terms of preparation and when it comes to 8 o'clock and 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock for important calendar items coming late it is physically impossible mentally improbable to be totally on top of it i want us to humbly anytime admit and spread the meetings apart so we can indeed do justice for everything improvements of us the second point it is in rebuttal to commissioner antonini's comment or illumination to his comment the parcel f in transbay is protected through the transcript planning effort it's the fact

the parcel did not the rest a bid co-sit down with the market in china that rightfully made people aware it happened on the same day people had a right to the fact they felt uncertain relative to the advancement of what they're doing this that is a direct effect on their decision not uncertainties about the process the processes in transbay and are clear and not impediment by what we do. >> i'm glad you guys brought up the length of the last meeting it taxes us not being fair to the public the public knows the president and vice president and the commission secretary meet once a week to try to set out

the advanced calendar we try not to let them fall off things get extended we try to make the time with certain items whenever possible i'm curious in video simulation to the public comment have been tried. >> oh. >> that's before us in november i think. >> okay. >> i'm open to sharing i think we are open to hearing other genocides. >> commissioner antonini. >> one thing that may be helpful we try to do this have as many hearings ahead of the decision date to allow the public comments and project sponsors and hopefully ma many of the issues will be resolved before we come up for the final

decision is it doesn't always happen but certain whenever possible to have multiple habeas corpus hearing on projects. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you for commenting just on the item yeah. i definitely agree that is challenging we're here for 12 hours and sharp at noon as midnight i know one thing we've got you know brown act and obviously want to hear the public comment but not only having multiple hearings but also better advertising and shrinking around the organized approval i think if people knew that was there i've supposedly spoken to an activist maybe 10 to 20 minutes or something might allow us to actually with good

conscious to limit public comment in some instances i know we've had to do with at skwoeshg agency we didn't have the room after 4 o'clock there have times i had to curtail public comment or maybe strengthening the orientation and advertising that might help 3 hours ever public comment on one item we want to hear all the voices but again, a practice outlet issue. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to department matters announcements. >> two items one to mention you may have seen the press release on vorlz kim i'll miss in the department the new director of that office i want to say that

official office is staffed by 3 members of the planning department who've been working on register and the city administrator's office those folks will be in the planning department open is fist floor and just as last wee week we had 6 hundred and 80 rentals so the members of the public who are interested in doing vorlz no waiting on appointments you get an appointment next day for short-term rental we've up to 6 hundred and 20 registrations for a - we'll be having a hearing on the academy of the eir but more specifically a discussion about the process for bringing projects to once the eir is

certified so think about the option we'll present you with some option how we structure the various approvals whether gop geograph or types of buildings whatever we'll give you those option on october 1st and generate a discussion objective can't bring all the projects at the same time that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> director ram could you perhaps add shorelines we're a little bit more prepared with the other to bunch together an outline how to organize we can look at ideas that would be great a form of what you're trying to do. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move on on top of to item 8 past events of the board of supervisors and the

historic preservation commission didn't meet yesterday. >> hi commissioners the board returned from its break, however, monday was a holiday legislative aide didn't meet district 8 and 3 adu legislation had its second reading and passed the conditional use authorization for the designated units in c-3 sponsored by madam chair rosales and supervisor kim and supervisor mar that was reheard because of the drafting error and signed by the mayor on august 6th didn't include all the projects but the board reconsidered and it passed on its first reading this week and finally, the accessory use entertainment south of market districts also received its first reading that allows the limited live performers in the g

district it was heard on july 16th and voted to unanimously recommend approval the board passed it unanimously on the first reading 3 introductions the co-corrections ordinance this commission heard on august 16th and introduced by the mayor and then the jewish home planning code amendment and general plan were also introduced that concludes my remarks. >> commissioners we'll move on to general public comment this time, members of the public may address the commission 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. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i do have sincerely speaker cards. >> okay.

>> georgia (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm back again with my alterations that are demoed this one i showed you previously can i have the overhead on commissioner mccarthy's street the original house and there was this spring another picture this spring that's how it was a long time ago, i didn't look at it until yesterday there it is and it is ironic i've learned this particular site pertains to something you have later on in the day i'll save that for later again, i know that is difficult

to ascertain what this is to me when i showed you those pictures going from that to this as i showdown showed it overhead please by any common sense definition that is a demolition especially, as it started with that granted people may have issues but you know it still a demolition the other thing i want to say is that maybe this is a trend maybe on out liar i found this notice hanging up in noah valley a noah valley startup a noah valley startup what is that going to be it occurred to me you know those large projects with four and five bedrooms and space

downstairs is people tired of riding the buses i don't know it is just a one of maybe something maybe nothing but it struck me on the happier note here is a project that was done at 7 or 8 years ago on 26 there's the original building i was printing it off of google now here it is today that is a very nice remodel i point out because i'm interested in what happens to the residential design guidelines that fits in the neighborhood not overly magnificent and out of scale and cpr that is staff with the residential design team i this that would be nice from the public had a workshop with the

staff 8 years ago when you were working on dr reform so thank you very much. >> any other public comment of the names we've called? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john taco group i want to follow up on the discussion last week about t5 m where we agree with the cam components is that development of this site is going to very definitely accelerate or approval accelerate gentrification of the 6th street

neighborhood it will go faster because of 5 m that matters how big the project in your opinion the as of right the 6 hundred square feet is just as damaging in terms of gentrification as the proposed project to be succinct the first 6 hundred feet kills the neighborhood because it it will have the you know the high-end housing it it will have the tech offices and the; isn't that so i didn't hip bars and that's the transformation that causes gentrification of a district whether 4 hundred or 6 million feet or the 1.2 million promoted about trigger that so for us the important questions what does the project include to counter

that how much to counter it and the key standards we've set with them we've talked about will it do much more than the favorable inclusionary or little 33 city policy or not will it in particular provide new sites for affordable housing because in look at doerdz the hardest thing is not the money but the land the site and because 5 m is making available that parcel on mission street for affordable housing they will contribute something important we have no other way to get the other big issue does it help us build the future neighborhood we'll have after gentrification when the only diversity is found in the permanently affordable housing and the affordable pdr space and so on the new

community park the integral park felt 5 m project is virtually we've trying to get a can clean park for sro tenants to leave their tiny rooms trying to do this for 30 years on 6th street and that's why we support the project in general it is qualified it is important detailed yet to address we'll bring those up with the supervisors thank you. >> hello, i'm teresa i'm part of the south of market action committee you know you commissioners and our city hall has been receiving hundred of e-mails in support of

5 m our coalition has found out forest city is using information if signing sheets to send automatic e-mails to sign on for a 5 m project and being told their signing on a petition without their knowledge and consent this is misleading the public and other decision-makers like 9 board of supervisors make us believe there is hundred of people in support of 5 m it the deceiving we're trust to give community benefits how can you trust a developer that disrespect the public you need to hold forest city accountable this is an open process and not backroom deals third agreement

development i also want to acknowledge the earlier comments 3 project will cause so much gentrification but from last week meeting by the time this development in the community benefits were in place our committee is gone so we need to think it through not just crush the numbers but impacting human lives the planning commission and the land use should be for the people and not for development not-for-profit thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm a mariey i'm part of quatro i'm here are a whole group of people protesting the unbelievable amount of luxury housing but in particular i'll

address the eastern neighborhood plan i was reading over the eastern neighborhood plan the first objective was strengthen the missions exiting mixed use character awhile making sense a place to live and work well, i don't know about maintaining the character when we have several buildings that are being proposed that will not be to the neighborhoods affordability and they're going to be more luxury condos also it shouldn't be able to you shouldn't be able to change a code designation and change that from pdr to condos i kind of

said that wrongs anyway one of the other objections to remain the missions parole for the pdr that block is a perfect example how this is changing and it makes me wonder what's the point of the eastern neighborhood plan if it is a guideline nobody follows one of the other objectives is to continue expand the city's efforts to increase permanently affordable housing programs and accountability that's another one that the monster in the mission definitely was not affordable the access was not affordable the cell space is not affordable and lennar was not affordable

i don't understand we have this outline but it seems to me nobody is really following that. >> the mission is just people are getting displaced and getting throne out pour around and ellis act and we need to put some sort of limit on that the goals of the eastern neighborhood plan preserve diversity and vital of the mission decrease the amount of affordable housing and preserve and enhance existing pdr, promote alternative means of transport to reduce traffic and auto use and improve the development in an additional facility and you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. >> my name is ronald eugene

david lee today i'll do poetry the 15 of september a day to remember a landmark day we can't let continue the ultimate landmark building a tree feel of physical open a high power line it burdened up and the dpw did great but maybe two late their trying to evict me as we speak 9 real issue you guys are doing a great job a really good job trying to make the city beautiful it is hard because homeless people and others want to live here it needs to be gorgeous actually does and but my issue is that i still think we should have a story tower on the rock

on the rock i mean it is perfect a towering light house with a red light beacon on the prison called alcatraz why not think of the money 20 years into the future that would be sailing into the bay like fleet week and you'll have a red light going by not bad go for the moon; right? hey that's all i have to say you guys are doing a great job and supervisor campos he's my boss got to go. >> good afternoon, commissioners eric san francisco residents i'll talk about community planning that is something that has been missing in a lot of the development i you know we have

east on bryan and the monster in mission and the fight on fulsome and we're not near halloween this is the way the community seize those developments that as horror story people are being displaced the community plan is really needing to be looked to rebuild a project not a building we're talking about in a certain location but a block and block and block we have to look at ♪ the bigger picture how it effects the businesses and art space and commercial space how it effects transportation we need to look at the bigger picture not just one piece we're lacking that and so many people come on here and opposing the development in the eastern neighborhood plan we talk about the community benefits the way the benefits are 140er78 benefits to the detriment of the

community long term so we need to look at the future of that neighborhood we need to look at it now make sure that in the hope that you commissioners courage those developers to work with the community for a plan it is important right now in the neighborhood because of the changes that are happening people are being replaced and not benefiting from the developments you know it is supposed to trickle down from 9 top not making to the bottom so again you know partner up with the communities and courage the developers to create plans for the areas not nell e negatively impacting the communities and supposed to benefit those communities they're being moved out and no benefits i courage you community planning is important we've down ♪ the past and you need to encourage the developers also thank you

>> good afternoon. my name is a latonya joni own a sro collaborative i'm a tenant today, i brought friends with me, you saw you when you were walking into city hall you'll be hearing from you will say soon we're here to demand you plan for people not-for-profit we don't need luxury housing we need truthfully truthfully affordable housing in san francisco we ask you to hear our demand for justice this crisis is no longer in doubt it is real and caused by human activity not by to mention the inactivity of the commission what we have today in 2014 a city that is putting out the red carpet with developers to make profit profit off of humans and misery something that the free

market won't take into consideration this must change if our justice of calls is as much as yours the struggling poor people the city not when the projects - this isn't a land it is called to action this way we'll say in all our might plans for people you (clapping.) >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm magic with all due respect when you spoke you referred to as you the audience over and over in meetings it indicative of the fact we're becoming unconscious of politics being a show we're the audience watching it i appreciate you'll refer to us as the public and

you're the public servants i've had two different public bodies change on the website audience participation instead of public participation i read an article some of you planning commissioners are realizing you have more power and time to look at a new way to interpret the law that the phrase community benefit is not nearly some phrase but, in fact, the very foundation of what your work is mathematic to do and that for too long in many communities u communities i've been participating for 40 years the planning commission has served the role of rubber stamp for developers i know you want that it to change this is a critical time in the planet anticipate this city has a so for the for working people we're

failing in doing it if so time to look at ways that the law can work as a benefit for the public trust we're really moving out of a time in which 9 bottom line bottom line is going to be money over and over again and or era in which public trust is your responsibility is and what the people when they come and ask you to stop those things must be done we've been putting pressure it is working the beast on brilliant and the monster in the mission we're being positive and creative and we're fierce not going to lose the city i've carried a vision it 16 years old until now i hold a positive vision about not go up my brothers and sisters will not give up you have a function now each of you need to search our soul so use your power to let

the worker people and poor and homeless have a place in the city and maintain the artistic diversity thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is testing wells fargo born i want to thank the planning department for putting in increased scrutiny for the increased projects over the most thank you for doing that there is more to be done stop spot zoning, stop spot zoning the other thing you really must start doing that you haven't done to my knowing is cumulative impact so you put in this project how does it effect all the other projects that exist or are planned maybe within a 10 or 20 block radius how to impacts all

the businesses in that area and impacts the long term residents when somebody is evicted their evicted from san francisco they lose their friends and dentists and hair current and medal amelia support team and family ties and if their senior or someone with disabilities they often die soon afrlz cumulative impact one example i will give you is the south van ness where 15 or so projects are planned with the possible addressing emission of 4 thousand cars to one of the most transit rich areas in san francisco you've got to to the office space spot zoning and look at it cumulative impact thank you. >> you saw it this great show you it was republic erupting ta

pa she's a traveling physician and travels the world really nice want to comment one the a can i may turn the lights down but not the best place to hang out all those bright lights and we need the most out of our public servants a - we drink 2 hundred milling grams of coffee and 8:00 p.m. hundred milligrams we fill milligrams of coffee ♪ our system football seen e season we get get to watch people in practice what we do their coach they have a play

list and look at the games with 70 plays 4 run and 40 pass plays i was wondering in here we see something like that we see the itemized agenda and see the internal department planning and communication and other extraordinarily from different city's organizations and other one general public comment and maybe 7 to 9 how many events but the number of minutes in cornerstones and those few hours might be the run off special in sfarmz single-family homes and we see a lot of negative energy we're not used to over 12 inches our skylight we sue 26 minutes of that in the last couple of hours and like more energy into creating and this idea of

equality kroons across public infrastructure i agree with the gentleman with the large hairdo something more than a prison on the iconic island out there thank you >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon where did it go? there we go >> no good afternoon, commissioners nice to see you again, i love you're taking care of of yourselves you need that we're all human i'm here to talk about prop m to remind you

things past sharpening to limit the office space and insert new growth guidelines two the city master plan the intent for the developers to pay fee subsidies to affiliate the educational falls in practice the requirements means opportunity i thought with money can develop as they wish this is your honor, or time to return to the guidelines i'll read some the existing neighborhood serving the retail uses be preserved and enhanced and future employment in an ownership of businesses are enhanced project effected 5 m the beast and prop i supports this another the existing housing and neighborhood character be preserved and protected in order to preserve the economic diversity ever our neighborhood projects effected 5

m yerba buena and beast on bryant and monster in the mission and prop i and f the city supplies the affordable housing be preserved and enhanced beast on bryant and 5 m and participate i and prop f a difference economic base be maintained before i protecting our service seethe from displacement due to office development for the employment and ownership in those sight rid lick and that prop i and prop f prop m is still on the books we need your support it is important we work together on this project and stop making it easy for one group of people to keep getting the upper hand that when there shouldn't be an upper hand it is provisions of appear

regularly in the environmental review the demolition. >> please as you finish. >> exercise more accountability in using them for the advantage of all we really appreciate your thoughtfulness we can do better and need you to use the word no more often until things become more clear and shared in the way we - you always shake your head. >> we can't hear you because of the noise every time i see you when i come up you shake our head wonderful i'm glad it wasn't me this time. >> that's the ends of public school that was a 15 minute public comment section other one at the end of today's agenda okay. we've gone well over the

15 minute allotment time. >> i think we can't precede with this noise. >> not-for-profit but for people. >> sir, your slithering out of order. >> we can go home. >> i'll go home. >> ma'am. >> thank you, thank you. >> ma'am, okay commissioners shall we precede with your calendar. >> let's take a 2 minute break. >> i want to go ahead let's go i'd like to remind the to get members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings.

commissioners, we left off your rent-controlled i was informed that item 12 for case geary billiard conditional use authorization experienced a notification issue where greater than 20 percent of the mail notices were returned the zoning administrator as determined a new notice needs to be september that item to be continued indefinitely and commissioner antonini. >> make a motion we should give for public comment to the matter. >> okay. so openly up for public comment on the item number 12 which is now recommended to be continued. >> it will be only on the matter of continuance.

>> hi good afternoon commissioner johns and commissioners i'm the director of government affairs for comcast can we get some. >> we variant heard anything about this. >> i was just informed of that so the planning you know the planner what is assigned to our case no evidence me unfortunately 20 percent of the notices were returned to the planning department so a new nose need to be sent. >> they were sent more than a month and a half ago i i don't

know work they're received. >> is that planner here. >> i did not see staff here so i can't respond to that question. >> i received an e-mail we were still on i'm confused that we're not - >> i can't explain why it is coming so late. >> david is here. >> commissioners david lindsey from department staff we had a lot of returns on the mailings for this one this was sent out we counted it up over 20 percent of the total most of them from one housing development across the street the zoning administrator was consulted and sized us to continue this in order to carry out the mailing.

>> sorry it was kind of hard to hear. >> so my question is that we sent out the mailers over a month and a half ago why did we receive word day they were returned they should have been returned in a week. >> it doesn't happen that fast with the post office we get a big chunk back this year weeks ago. >> as of 11:30 i had a merge we were on the with the planner. >> we were counting them up literally within the last hour. >> so what did. >> what are the next. >> we'll have to renotice this hearing and with corrected addresses we'll return return the nephew's to you so you can see where the problems are and

have our mailing consulate correct those to be remailed. >> you say it was to one particular development they were returned or - >> no, from yes, from one particular development. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. so what's the recommended date for . >> indefinite continuance. >> reuse of mailing. >> right. >> there is no date you have to actually reuse the notices so we'll have to find a new date, no use in continuing the matter a new date will be chosen. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a question they said a second mailing so how soon shall we know the results of second mailing whether or not those railroad received. >> i'm not sure what they were talking about. >> maybe project sponsor give

me more information on the fact the notices were sent out twice. >> right twice so our original simulation six months of window when the hearing date is set up we've been if the process of 10 months we were required to send out a second mailing a month and a half ago. >> i can explain it now the original - the planning department does the mailing based on the materials sxhimentd by the applicant they provide us with the mailing addresses and the city sends out the mailing the first set of addresses they sent were more than because of the case with the department for longer than 6 months those addresses are considered outdated they presented us with a second set no initial mailing with those addresses we did the

mailing based on the second set of addresses those are the responses returned. >> i understand only one mailing the question had is a reasonable amount of time there will be another mailing presuming within a week or to. >> the mailing is a thirty day mailing and we can do it fairly quickly once we get the revised addresses from the project manager they'll need to provide those and take them some. to put them together we can certainly is a a date 6 weeks out there if we don't make it we'll continue that. >> i'd rather make that continuance you've renoticing. >> we have to. >> at least we have a date presuming that the message that the notices go out and only a small percentage come back i'm

going to make a motion project sponsor let's say 6 weeks from now if that suits you to schedule the hearing on this item. >> yep that will be great. >> i'll ask the commission secretary and make that motion. >> that will be the 15th of october. >> is that enough time. >> mr. lindsey october 15th it's only 4 weeks. >> i mean the mailing is a thirty day mailing. >> we haveo t allow time for things to come back. >> excuse me. supervisors i'd like to say something i'm part of the ownership of this project we've fall into this virtuous cycle of the timeline that was received by the people f that

needed to receive it because of countless changed by the planning department it is expired so it is not because those people have not known about the project everybody has been notified and we've been complying for the locate it time this is causing the ownership a lot of pain this should be streamlined i'd like for us to try to see if we can continue to hear it today. >> sir unfortunately, the zoning administrator has determined we can't precede today he is the authoritative voice on that matter whether or not notice has been adequate. >> each time a different deadline. >> i understand and completely simple sympathizes emphasis those werehe labels that are submitted by your group. >> previously. >> they were never sent, sir.

>> the first set of notices not mailed they were simply extraordinary. >> they were mailed because we were in the process with the planning department it expired and supposedly people moved. >> right. >> i'm very sorry, sir i'm sympathetic this is - >> you know we're talking about a lot of community benefit here and - >> sir at this time because of the determination made by the zoning administrator no way to proceed with the hearing today legally. >> there is a little bit of confusion there were sent initially and the only reason to wait 6 months because potentially people have moved that's a very, very small percentage of people. >> there's no action we can take but to continue and i think so your complication i'd like to

help you with the actual planning with the zoning administrator so find out what happened and didn't happen as of today right now we continue the item. >> it's not that i need to be heard. >> sir, sir at this point. >> one last thing. >> okay. >> i'm preempted to make the continuance i think we said the 15 was go earlier question, continue to october 22nd and if we have to. >> my motion to continue to october 22nd and also hope staff will continue to work with the project sponsor to try to make sure that didn't occur again. >> do i hear a second public school or to october 22nd 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 commissioners, that places you under your on item 9 for case 2015 plus establishing a new transportation sustainability fee this is a planning code amendment. >> commissioners i'll introduce this item and then we'll have several speakers after me this is an long-standing piece of work at multiple departments have updated and expand the city's required fee subsidies of development to support transportation systems the transportation sustainability fee is one parents of the 3 part program one the fee itself which is the successor to the transportation

compact fee and the transportation demand management program we're working on to reduce the demand for single auto use and the thirds ceqa reform pending at the state level that allows us to streamline the ceqa reviews for transportation reviews so this is a multi department effort the one the planning department, mta, transbay joint powers authority and the mayor's office and a number of other agencies i'm joined today by director reiskin from the mta and supervisor katie tang from the transportation authority and have staff make the actual presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners commissioner president fong tilly chang with the transbay joint powers authority it is a plastic surgery or pleasure to be here to speak on behalf of

the transportation authority all to express our agencies appreciation for this bodies leadership and the planning department we're strongly supportive of this thing the transportation sustainability fee and the overhead sustainability program effort as you may know the work has been in the making over the past decade or so many, many years our collective aim to better align san francisco's review method and policies with our official policies first, the transit first while it sounds simple we know it is not easy to do but have many foundational policies to work on we built on the foundation of the transportation we broke ground on the ceqa analysis and engaged the public a number of community stakeholders from all sectors of

the city everyone predecessors how hard to get the decision how fundamentally important it shapes at transportation demand we respond to investments in policy on the transportation front but a relationship it is a system as the county management agency the transbay joint powers authority transportation authority is interested not approach together with our planning department and sfmta and the mayor's office we've worked closely and collaboratively over the years to develop a 3 part approach to managing the demand with the development we know that the funding is just one piece of a larger need it takes a team from multi agencies to build the picture to move our city forward here let me acknowledge and thank a generation of planning department staff for bill and

alicia and victor and others under the direction of director ram the classification has been build on the innovative policies with the t d i f it will janitor the need investment for the transit systems systems and the infrastructure to respond to challenges like vision zero and growth and we also know this is going to be a great foundation for the update the vision for the city that is an upcoming collaborative effort including the planning department this will result in an update to the mayor's office task force and we move into another round of seeking further revenues to invest in the transportation system and prioritize and fund

those projects over the next 25 years and beyond thank you for the partnership the transportation authority looks forward to collaborative with the planning department on the coming work and looking forward have bringing updates to seek your that guidance and keep you informed thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner johns and members of the commission ed reiskin with the sfmta just a follow on what john and tilly spoke to we've been making significant investment in the transportation system if over the past years to improve the recital and reduce the reliability open transportation by bike and foot those efforts notable advanced by the mayor's

office task force actuary mentioned established are identified $10 billion of needs for the transportation system over the next 15 years on $3.7 billion have been identified that task force recommended new local revenues to start closing that gap the first step was taken when voters approved prop a to advance those judge's of improving mini reliability and making it safer for folks we've replaced the fleet the bus fleet and beginning the process of expanding and ultimately replacing the light rail federate and the need transportation investment we have we've been using the fund to leverage other regional and state fund a 41 cap & trade to

support our rail we have a gap if $10 billion need doesn't account for the impacts that all the development coming to the city will bring and this commission knows better than anyone in the city what kind of impact to our city and transportation system specifically a couple of ways that the development can have impacts on the city's economy and our quality of life just sitting here in this meeting heard 0 so for those are matters of deep interests and concerns to a lot of the san franciscans what we do in terms of investing in transportation to support that development have can have a profound impact much the growth will come to the city from a

regional prospective rightly so to san francisco and it is really our obligation and opportunity to plan how we manage that growth and development so it didn't adversely what it means meanings for transportation if we make the investments in transit and enhancing other affordable and save ways for people to get around the city and they don't bring their cars we'll have employees congestion and pollution in the skies than otherwise equally for the fact that the more that we invest in sustainable affordable transportation like transit such as a save cycling and walking in the city the ground the range of

diversity of people will be able to stay and come to the city the i think people will probably come no matter what but the more to invest in affordable transportation the more to preserve some of the economic diversity that makes san francisco what it is so to that end we are to have worked with the other city staff to bring forward the fee that asks the development community to take on a broader and bigger responsible for the transportation developments that their developments need it didn't fossil fuel fund the impacts but a big step towards closing the gap it doesn't imaging eism pigeon the development that brings their increased contribution to addressing the niece of transportation system

that their rely on this matter came before the sfmta board of directors and without opposition recommded it's approval to this body and to the board of supervisors so i would i thank you very much for giving you the time to speak for considering this item and would very respectfully and strongly courage your adoption of this fee so we can support and best manage the development coming to our city thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners and thank you directors adam from the planning department staff if i could go to the power point excuse me. i'm joined by staff members from mta and sfmta and the mayor's office of housing who are here to answer questions and may contribute to the presentation as you recall we made a presentation on the

sustainability program about a month ago we're back to talk about on action item recommending to one aspect as john mentioned the transportation establishment fee we'll get into the details of the proposal but step back and refresh and talk about the overhead program as you may know san francisco is growing and expected to continue to grow we have to keep up the ability off people to move boo about the city we need to continue to invest in our transportation system so this is the goal of the transportation sustainability program to keep people moving as the city grows as we've previously presented 3 components that are shown here we'll coming back to talk about the first two we'll focus on the transportation sustainability fee part of the promote ordinance the subject of the proposed ordinance that is

before you today we've done at this time i at this point discussed with with a wide variety of stakeholders from the small businesses community and the housing and transportation advocates to craft a proposal that balances the interests so i wanted to sort end by describing some of the things the fee will do this proposal is the first time this city will have a impact fee on transportation on residential development and b would be the first citywide fee for complete streets on any dive development as director reiskin mentioned the city made a commenting commitment to invest in the transportation through a proposed series of voter approved manufactured but a multi strategy to work with the development community to increase the revenue towards the

transportation system the fee will raise over $400 million in new revenue for complete streets and transit improvements to help serve the new growth with that, i'm going to turn it over to lisa to talk about the mechanics of the proposal. >> good afternoon, commissioners lisa of planning staff i'm pleased to present the impact fee or t f f insuring the transportation system fee subsidies it needs so the t s f was introduced by mayor ed lee and supervisor wiener and supervisor breed and commissioner christensen and were substantially amended through the legislation on july and september 8th as september 8th it was introduced after it was published and submitting a recent substitute

ordinance and memo describing the changes we'll continue to be may be small changes to correct the technical code references for adoption so i'll be describing the fee proposal and as well as feedback during the public comment will during the presentation the chief of staff with the sfmta will talk about how mta will sure to address the refunds for the transportation needs do before i devolve into the fee director reiskin referenced this critical funding gap over $10 billion over 2024 this diagram highlights the goals the mayor's transportation task force aimed is at addressing the core of the system as well as the measures the s f s is designs to talk

about the system generated new growth if adopted the t f f insures that the developers with transbay their fair share they've crafted to create a balance between technical studies i'm going to get into soon the nexus study and the feasibility study in order to apply a fee to non-residential and residential uses around the city it will replace the current kneeing or t d i f and apply it to more uses there is in addition to the non-residential and residential uses the fee brown will apply to large institutions maine a university for the majority of nonprofits. >> so before i get into the

actual fee i wanted to provide background on the fee so the t s f to strike a balance at the city commission the nexus and the feasibility study we presented the key finding from the each of the studies before getting into the fee so the nexus study has a legal joifd it is based on the new transportation basically how many trips by housing and jobs how much to cost the city with the transportation services the t s f feasibility study sets the fee subsidies for - the ultimate goal do maximize and causing the housing to rise essentially 9 nexus study connected by urban

confirmations talked about the - establish the total costs by providing those through 2025 that is presented in 2, 3, 4 table identified two categories of transportation transit and complete street the transit identifies the maintenance and capital facilities projects while the street nexus identifies the street safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists an acknowledgment it easy the system this nexus was established by the san francisco citywide nexus study but is part of the rate adding those together adds up the nexus in the renewal column from 26 to $334 for non-residential those

figures represent to offset their impact on office in order to help establish appropriate fee subsidies within those ranges the economic feasibility studies conducted elevated t f s impacted the non-residential and residential the study will be updated every 5 years to reflect the market conditions or requested by the mayor or board it has ranges if 6 to $16 per square feet and the non-restricted remain from 4 to $36 a square feet the value analysis to determine house those impact the returns with a goal of insuring that development can occur in order to make sure the fee impacts the

development across the city the study look at 10 projects meant to look at types the model on common types of applications we receive at the development and include residential and non-residential ranging from small to large projects in various neighborhood a number of prototypes are with the feasibility addressed the central selma feasibility study the study found the current market supports $7 per square feet for residential and 18 per non-residential without resulting in the housing costs in the neighborhoods is occurring those fee levels represent an increase of roughly one to two percent for residential development and less than one percent construction costs for non-residential, however, the

study found a significant feasibility depending on the projects and location certain neighborhoods like the excelsior have lower than average rents and might not be feasible given the circulating construction costs the t s f will not distance the projects from further feasibility whether the study noted should the market have a down turn the revenues can't cover the costs future costs are more sensitive to impact fees for those reasons the f example t f s be recommended at no more than higher amounts here's the rates promoted compared to t.i.d. if $3 plus a square foot and the non-restricted is $18 or 4 clrsz

more than the rates the pdr rate is $7 plus per square feet that is equal to the t d i f this is the maximum justified transit access the proposal has a few reductions in some area plans that are equal to the transit area fee up to the fuel amount of t d example i f it will apply to most land use covered by the existing t d i f and will be 21 units or more and large nonprofits there will be no change in states go many or are crafted to make sure the t d i f

it will contempt affordable housing with the lower-income units serving up u up to ami and up to hundred and 50 percent ami it will exempt small residential of 28 or fewer and small businesses that are changing uses those are less than 5 thousand square feet in size i'll note 24 replaces the system for small businesses in the t d i f and making that available to all qualifying businesses all nonprofits will be exempt except for all universities the intention to expand to cover the major universities and hospitals that have a master plan and as they generate the significant impacts hospitals are undergoing

seismic but have the languages that the fee maybe applied to hospitals once the requirements are met estimated for 2024 those exempt the properties owned by the sfgov government and for the project areas or by development agreements the terms specifically sent the project from paying fee subsidies the proposal specification that the projects will trigger the fee consistent that is triggered by new examinations of 8 hundred square feet or more it triggers except for small businesses that applies from a educator with a lower to a higher fee rate as aside since the t s f has a non-residential educator there

will be fewer instances where a need are for a change of use the proposal includes grandfathering to october accountant for the pipeline that may want have anticipated the fee for residential and non-residential that are having the entitlements the rates apply residential promotions that have submitted a application but not having an sgiement pay the 50 percent and the non-restricted residential will continue to pay current t d i f rates in the course of proposal staff has a wide range of stakeholders that is reflected shareholders in the communities citizens advisory committee and policy advisory group and housing advocates and the transportation advocates and nonprofit and

market rate developers among others a full schedule of meetings is in the case report the next slide is the feedback on the process we've received several questions or comments regarding the provisions specifically on the side structures and the formula retail use 2, 3, 4 response the staff met with chamber of commerce and others to address those concerns as a result, the small business commission voted to have a support of the t d i f and staff receives the february from the neighborhood organizations that the fee revenue should support the investments in high growth it includes mraung they'll prioritize the transportation project that are identified in the area plans during preliminary outreach from the community staff heard and incorporated the feedback and

incorporated the rates should be no more than 50 percent high as projects can be current in the pipeline unfeasible similarly developers indicated the fee could impact smaller residential promotions because the tight amazing and in response we've developed projects less than 20 units that is projected growth the middle-income of the ami was two hive with the mayor's office of housing staff said in order to be consistent with the mexican-american housing they asked the rates to be increased because they fail whether or not the rates if the nexus study as mentioned the fee subsidies are based on the nuksz and the economic feasibility study it indicated the fee subsidies can

have a negative impact on some development the fee subsidies try to maximumize them without harming development finally we heard feedback the fee should be applied to parking spaces and in residential building in respond the staff consumed with the city attorney's office and we can't charge the fee based on the nexus study they don't culture parking straight this is actually a policy that staff has investigated previously, however, the research linking parking is current not strong enough to add to the nexus as part of city's research on the management program another part of the t f p staff is looking at

sufficient evidences to suggestion suggest a direct link to add developments for off-street parking some stakeholders said the fee should be applied to affordable housing, nonprofits and so on as a nexus study adu added all studies have an impact the proposal was to align with others city policies such as insuring that africa be developed in the city with that, i'll pass it over to alicia. >> yeah. i see commissioner avalos here i don't know if you want to take that opportunity if that's okay with staff. >> thank you commissioner president fong and commissioners and thank you for taking up this important new fee development and transportation commissioner avalos and i

represent district 11 the southern part of san francisco we're actually on the outskirts of san mateo couldn't and daily city a different type of phenomenal o phenomena when it comes to develop the other day we had put a plan into the board of supervisors q the planning department to send to the mtc to declare this part of san francisco is priority along geneva and mission apparently that wasn't done efficiently and so to me this is often not a lot of attention given to this part of san francisco we have incredible sites close to balboa park station and to the transit like balboa park station there

isn't really the type of structure in terms of refinancing and land use that helps to incentivize that type of development from happening we have a new transportation sustainability fee that perhaps can be created in a way to create incentives for development in this part of san francisco that to me t in my he experience and the people in the southern part of city are way behind the rest of the city we're back in the 1950s for infrastructure and transportation we would like to get to the 21st century before we get to the big 21st century the sustainability fee will be a great improvement over the t.i.d. f the nexus study makes that clear it is not near sufficient for the new impacts on the transportation network i understand there are limits to how high a fee developers can

pay and still be able to finance their projects i think we can craft a fee that generates additional revenue without cpac development the hospital exemption the exemption for a large nonprofit hospital is problematic those large institutions have significant impacts in or transportation and have the resources to pay this fee we would like to see we take out that exemption it is also important to identify touched on and staff touched on varying the fee subsidies for different areas the economic feasibility study shows the impact of the feasibility varies wildly depending on the locations and the small developments in the outer region will be affected but the housing projects like 9 central waterfront will still be

feasible from the fee were doubled i believe we need to look at creating a available fee structure to match the fee amount to the reality of the neighborhoods we have lee all kinds of development the excelsior district it never exams before you it is creating denser housing with the garages and new housing unpermitted housing altogether and it is something we need to be able to address by new land use policies and new ways of looking at the structures that create incentives for the new development this can you be a very a way to incentivize it in the outer neighborhood that are left behind by the current boom this will you been more affordable than the other higher prized neighborhood we should scale the fee based on the projects that

will not over butch the developers awhile mitigating more profitable promotions and look at it concerns about the exemption on middle-income housing that, too high of an ami give exemptions up to 50 percent of ami i appreciate the city is for the producing enough mid-market housing i'm not sure we should be treating those are deeply affordable housing i'll propose giving a parish waiver to the mid-market or lowering the threshold to hundred and towing percent ami grairt the grairt project in the pipeline seems or terrorly doesn't seem to be a justification to increase this to 50 percent we can develop a

nuance approach bans the size of the project and how far through the process those projects are it is problematic to grater a large project like mraishd and treasure island those those projects are not breaking ground for many, many years to not burden of proof the promotions with financing since development is jars away there is time to plan how finance can happen and probably changes in the financing structures that enables them to card and the fee subsidies don't apply to the park is a big hole i'm glad this will be hopefully address in the upcoming management and the transportation authority is looking at how to structure the

t s f with the different structures of housing we have in different neighborhood i hope you'll consider a nuance approach thank you. >> good afternoon alicia with the national transportation agency if i could return to the power point in terms of the revenue generations anticipated wear expecting that did fee in total generates $38 million a year in revenue that is under the way it is constructed now because there recent an existing transit fee the restructuring to generate about $14 million a year for the transportation system this is a stealing critical source of funding for the transportation system although

the mta as has a budget of $600 million unanimously it goes to maintaining the existing assets and frankly we can use more funding for this purpose having a revenue source to dictate to the expansion will allow to accommodate the growth that's happening in the city in terms of how the funds will be programmed about 60 percent of the funding will serve as a replacement to the impact fee and used in the same thing those funds are used now essentially the mta uses that money to invest in vehicle and facility maintenance captains that campaigns that are two small or too large through the operating budget replacing the doors our the light rail vehicles some of you may be on the train and the

vehicle can't move we don't have the funds we're having ad hoc services in the system so having the funds in place to make sure this is preventing maintenance and will continue under this proposal the majority of new funding would be invested in captivity expansion sapsz much of that for the muni system but funding for the regional partners like bart and caltrans that play an important role from the city's transportation and funding for bicyclist and pedestrians as well more specifically the capacity investments are currently planned to include such as a vehicle expansion, one of the most clear-cut ways to add to capacity is simple to add to the service we need the vehicle to finger that service to be

provided one of the things we often hear at the time at the mta questions where we run one car that's all the rest are out in the service that is important to provide reliable uncrowded transit service we receive form funding to replace the vehicles we don't have funding resources for the vehicle expansion so this is an important use of the t f s in tat area and funds will be programmed towards reducing travel 7, 8, 9 and when we take time out of the running time from one end of the line to another we get service increase r buses are circulating through that line so that's an important component of transit capacity so we also are planning

bus rapid transit on van ness and geary on geneva the major over halls of m line through 9 sfmta and there the fund such testimony excuse me. station capacity for bart as well as bart car renovation caltrans trek indication to expand the capacity of transit within san francisco on the bicycle and pedestrians we continue to be focused on vision zero that is the goal of reducing traffic fatalities to zero by 2024 and much the investment enabled to the t s f is through the bicycle safety and pedestrian safety projects. >> on the programming does the mta gloss a robust budget that

has the capital we have that includes a number of public hearings both through the cac and with other stakeholders as well as the mta board, the board of supervisors and the capitals planning committee we partner with the transportation authority to make sure the prioritization process that is through the capital budget reflects the san francisco transportation plan and the priorities laid out there as with the impact fees the t f s will, recorded to the planning commission every two years the planning commission have have an opportunity to look at how funds are programmed and implemented one of the concerns we've heard on a fairly consistent basis we've talked with the shareholders how to balance between system wide transportation and investments in neighborhoods that are

experiencing an extreme amount of growth the t s f has prior sister those in the eastern neighborhood plan or other area plans at the same time we'll need to look at the system wide investment for example, if we were to purchase new vehicles with those funds it wounded make sense for us to hold those 0 the neighborhoods the ghetto is happening it will have a system that benefits so the intent to balance between both of them and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> 0 in conclusion commissioners the t s san francisco aab/building inspection commission you may adapt it with if adapted it will raise $1.2 billion that is new

revenue to insure the new developments are trsht their fair share it represents the first citywide transportation fee and the citywide fee to have the street improvements it increases the amount that the non-restricted residential developers are to pay the fee was in consumption with a broad rage of stakeholders to maximize transportation without an impact on the feasibility ever result in the real estate prize cross the city we recommend approval of the ordinance and do you want a resolution if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and share your feedback on the proposal thank you. >> thank you for your presentation we'll open to public comment i have a number of speaker cards.

>> hi commissioners good afternoon thank you for holdings this hearing i speak here today as the president of the union for the faculty of san francisco but i speak as a member of the u.s. community i'm with the i chaired out of the 8 years on the board of supervisors on lufkts and chairs that and have some acquaintance with the transportation the allergy d i f i was the chief author to amend it when it was $5 a square feet for the limited applications that is eight or nine years ago we had a nuking study and feasibility study done and upped it more than $10 for non-residential optimistic and the uses under t d i f this

proposal p is 98 percent green there are pieces i want to address one on behalf of ucsf so on behalf of the city the nexus study identified $87 in change to a maximum allowable and $18 in change is 21 percent of what is the max non-remain it hits 26 percent those are the charts we take out of the documents why is non-residential charged excuse me. residential 26 it is the maximizing and non-residential over 21 percent if this is a policy call as opposed to a political call we'll debate that but ucsf an institution where i teach represents the only as you said post secondary education

institution a nonprofit that is being basically targeted as it is required to side in a master plan targeted for some of the development that will benefit the students and benefit the city that provides dormitory and would be gains for millions of dollars and appears to be under the cheshl exemption case the only institution that is being pulled away i would ask you, please recommend you have options before you one your recommendations can certainly be to recommend that option that takes away the cheshl opposite from you feel be reinstated it didn't make sense i don't think i'm allowed to tell you they're providing how's and making nothing the face of ucsf in case someone has an opinion the fist

whether negligent or gender or economic or financial all the financial aid to students is unbelievable not a lot of rich kids going to school i'm sorry is my time up would you, please you know reinstate the cheshl institutions for the institutions master plan that allows ucsf to do something to continue to give financial aid to low income students i can't tell you how. >> thank you for your public service i really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm tndc good afternoon. i'm perverting construing with the san francisco transit riders we're strongly in supports of the transportation sustainability fee program but at the same time, we have concerns that if so not as strong as it should be in a number of easier the comments

that commissioner avalos made are in line with our concerns we have a letter along with 5 other organized and make sure we have that improvements us and the organized are address many of the concerns i can't hit 4 issues that are discussed specifically in the letter the first one is that the fee itself is proposed at ratesy building are insufficient given the city's desperate revenue needs with the structural diversities 25 percent is 2w50 although, the level set for residents we feel are too low and the commercial are too low the second issue the waivers we feel are far too expensive and e extensive and need to be rolled back the thirtdz initial the ingratiate which we feel is too generous and needs to be restrained and the fourth issue is those really

the first 3 were on the revenue side and the fourth on the expenditure that we feel that the mta should be given maximum flexibility those should be applied and available to be spent for operations as well for capital very broadly and that is consistent with t d i f just the address the first one the city the rate at which the the most critical for the revenue and going up to 33 percent rate will generate $3 million more for the city i'll note with the t d i f was put in place established at a $5 rates against this 9 percent even of the economic

feasibility study says a majority of residential proposals o properties would not be affected 8 out of 10 not effected by a higher rate we feel that is a convert estimate as john said i'll also with respect to using friends for operations i'll note the mta has the ability to do this sing t d i f was in place and demonstrated the ability to political those funds and not squanderer those funds but the validity of t d i f funds helps the city to avoid service cuts so it is important the agency has that flexibility thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is nicole

i'm the executive director of lock san francisco thank you for your attendance on this matter today, i time to highlight that we are really excited that the transportation sustainability fee is moving forward here with you today and we're excited that the, in fact, we're so excited we want more of it the fee is less than 25 percent of what the nexus shows it's the biggest concern housing and transportation are two sides of the same coin people need to get to their designation safely and inefficiently the sustainability fee will help to do that makes sure that as we accept new growth in our city that those people can get to and from their designation we know that commemorating is frustrating if

we don't invest in modes of transportation that e safe we can't expect people people to shift to those modes that is a great model but charging developers such a small percent leaves something less to be desired we're sustain this level of frustration around congestion with 3 people getting hit by cars every single day in san francisco an thinking safety transportation system or ask the developers at a pay the fee subsidies and invest in our system i know there are economic impacts and economfeasibility i you to look at this was it works for you may be 50 percent but at the current waiting rate of 25 percent or less didn't cut did

you might want to consider maybe downtown areas the fee that vefrment won't be finished on the other hand, if he should by an increased fee that area pays the full fee other areas of full development and the development fee subsidies might be more impactful we want to see more fee subsidies in the parking the fact that parking is if the applicable to the fee for a transportation prospective is really scary that we're not actually asking people developers to pay a transportation impact from the probability the largest impact which is parking so as you move on and consider this transportation sustained fee i hope you make sure we're setting

ourselves on the best trajectory for the san francisco transportation system. >> thank you. next speaker, please good afternoon, commissioners thank you for your service i'm tyler the policy director at the san francisco bicycle coalition and as usual i ask say what invoking said but we'll take a few minutes that is a strong supporter of the sustainability fee as was mention in the pregnancy by staff it is leading model for the rest of the country how to acknowledge our commercial development has huge impacts on the transportation system and if we're going to provide our residents and visitors and the people who work here with a transportation that lets them get around the city

effectively and minimum anything's the pollution we're seeing increased thought the city we need to find a way to pay for it this links those critical components we urge you to take into account what the most fee is as noted the current proposal is 25 percent of what the nexus fee suggests the true costs of transportation impact and if you read through the economic feasibility study it is lower in many areas than a xhibl feasible supervisor avalos point is well-taken the haiti appetite changes in the city very robust and downtown and other parts the city including his district the current fee is sufficient and much higher than you'll reach the development i hope you

consider and think about other opportunities whoa whether the development is happening and the strength of the interest for the development in those areas i want to emphasis from peter straus and others around the parking square footage is concerning that the parking is not knit as part of t s f it is part of the square footage of the residential building and so we lived that that area square footage should be included when leveraging a fee upon the developer we suggest and hope you'll consider those changes i want to reiterate strongly supportive of that proposal overall and hope to see it in san francisco soon. >> is there any additional public comment?

>> good afternoon, commissioners tim collin on behalf of the housing action coalition i wanted to commend the planning department we've followed that and want to say broadly we're solidly the project we support and the guidelines to evaluate that type of urban ism is inadequately funded this is a way to get another it with that said i want to say on the central question of the fee subsidies the theory being the best fee subsidies are the ones that someone else pace and wear in a situation our membership is going to pay a significant fraction of the fee subsidies we get it we want better transit the city needs that badly our understanding the fee subsidies before i were the result of an extensive

feasibility analysis a quantitative analysis to estimate how it would be looked like without causing harm and improvement and what appears to be the conversation is that the projects that in transbay or rincon hill couldn't absorb the fee subsidies forgot it make no mistake no allusion 774 is not an amount that will build smaller scale and lower cost destruction outside of the urban core that's precisely the housing we need and is absent in any the building we see going on it is painful when large institutions that might under a different circumstances boast about the numerous jobs they say we can't say we're to poor we

get it the fee subsidies seem to be an economic analysis behind that we don't think that saying let's raise it to the nexus level it seems a little bit outlandish is it based on an analysis that relates to the feasibility we variant heard if it is or not i'll urge to consider speaking that capturing some of the fee generations from this and using it for physical tangible improvements in neighborhoods one of the narratives we hear frequently gosh we see all the development and nothing gets better we don't see it the prospective the numerous revenues produced by development as benefits to the city's the financial benefits to the city disappear and can't be identified in any tangible was as an improvement to the neighborhood something like that

might go to that argument i urge you to consider it. >> thank you. >> sue hester it's been a long time coming that fee generated in the 19 or dick was on the seat from the planning commission from the puc and soon after the passage of the property 13 how the muni will be impacted by shutting off prashgsz it deserves more consideration than a report last week for the scene

today we've heard really good comments including supervisor avalos you have to look at what is the correct way to show i think much of your role you have land use and certainly within the board of supervisors or even the mta you get the project week by week and you go through them all when the intent i d was passed the ratio was basically half now it is gound to 25 percent i find it hard to understand we have a serious transportation need in the city if you live in an outlying area like district 10 or 11 district 4 is the beneficiary of rapid transit but if you are on the bus lines you feel it when you're in the

boundary of the city so i'm asking you to a take a deep breath this is big legislation i don't think you're ready to vote today based on the comments you've heard how will you change what you're recommendation is to the board of supervisors and mta i think they should be changed i agree with the what jake said about institutions we've found an institution basically says too bad on the planning codes we're not going to have an institutional master plan and take 25 years without compliance they do no hosing they have buses all over the city and haven't paid a penny which has been really good about file their institutional master plan

has a cap an enrollment and has to pay for transit passes they buy transit a pays for the entire body as a result of the master plan and if you don't have the same standards for all of the institutions in the city that you can regulate that you're not doing your justice thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. commissioners carolyn chase of patch duffey on behalf of the university of san francisco as you may know the legislation before you eliminates the longs standing cheshl exemption for the institutions including i was as dratted the legislation will newly impose a fee on

residential projects like student projects and explained in more detail by ucsf this is of concern because ucsf proposed 6 hundred beds student projects on behalf of the i was we respectfully request the cheshl exemption be remained at the anytime the student housing should, expected particularly the pipeline projects that have a e application on file as you're aware a shortage of student housing in the city and in recognize of this need the city adapted legislation in 2010 and 2012 to incentivize the development of new student how's we ask you continue to consider the amendments suggested by ucsf again doyle the cheshl exemption will be remained based on the research it appears that ucsf is the only university that would, in fact, be negatively effected

by this proposed amendment notably as cca and the san francisco art insult those are smaller and have this to no future development plans thank you for your time and consideration. >> good afternoon. i'm litigating miles lives the master planner at san francisco thank you for the opportunity with you today i'm here to request on behalf of the you thought that the existing cheshl exemption be remained in the proposed fee legislation the san francisco state university is a private in time the onuniversity that will be negatively effected by the fee

that is a disprompt impact there are two points i want to brought to your attention first is carolyn indicated we're in the process of developing a 6 hundred beds residential hall on mountain, the currently, we have about 35 percent of our students and this we hope will get is to in the mid 44 percent of our student body on campus the significant in a number of ways students on campus on behalf of better and learn better and stay in school and graduate and it is builds community on the campus from our prospective a lot of incentive in having students on campus a a beneficial consequence new housing on campus relieves housing in the city we'll bring in 6 hundred

students out of the mandatory housing into campus and additional benefits to expanding the housing on cpa's campus two point we have a policy on campus where students in the dorms are not allowed cars that takes cars off the road in the city and also with the students living on campus it reduces the commuting another point i want to make that every undergraduate this year 9 graduate students get muni passes from the university the university pays sfmta one $.7 million a year between one half to 1.7 and distribute those passes to the students that is part of robust transportation plan we have a 2 it percent drive alone rate and 26 among

the community as a whole that's less than half the driving in the city so in conclusion ucsf is. >>again, institutional citizen and we've been simple mind out in this brother and sister process we're developing housing on campus acronym three-quarters of our folks use transportation and we respectfully request you remain the cheshl exemption thank you >> good afternoon commissioners peter cohen with the housing organization we've a party to the letter that was submitted to you earlier along with the walk sf senior disability action and upper habitat and actually, i think historical alliance with the san

francisco bicycle coalition we all understand the implementations of that fee parole and it's been a long time coming 3 years overdue it is unfortunate with the development since 2012 how much lost revenue by not having this in place here we are i don't normally call process issues to the floor but i want to say i find it fluflt that today at 11:00 a.m. substantive amendments introduced at the board of supervisors for which no notification of any kind i'm rapidly scanning through the memo you got today those are not non-substantive or minor changes they are nuance and significant i really think this is inappropriate frankly to force action today it is a moving set

of goalposts including the amendments you sue yesterday as a case in the the increase of the exception for the pdrs businesses that co-locate in a building is effectively allowing full-scale pdr that's a policy question you should be asking it is different from a single 5 thousand square feet business when you have. >> bunch of them into the pdrs hubs you're talking about exemptions for very large development it is not a bad thing but to do it quietly under the coffers we need a robust conversation one thing that was different from the june version we saw with mta that came out shortly afterward a changes to the initial waivers and rescues the initial waivers was for up to 26 ami low and behold the office of

development wanted it to 50 percent ami not other rational that's the price point for live the mayor's office but we don't have housing program at hundred and 50 percent ami there is a strong persistent to keep it capped at hundred and 20 that is moderate and have public funding hundred involving is a symbolic role and reductions a 25 percent reductions initial that changed to 50 percent reduction for the scaled a grandfather like the market rate vendors with no policy conversation and you've heard how much lost revenue we suggest to keep it at 25 percent or perhaps tier that for projects in the pipeline get two reductions and large a smaller

reduction thank you very much. >> additional public comment? okay. not seeing none, public comment is closed. and open up to commissioners commissioner antonini >> very important subject and important issue i'm pleased by the fact that is being addressed i agree with some of the speakers i wish that had been earlier but we show this need of $10 billion and from justice department what is presented it deals with present systems some augmentation and replacing the light rail and buses and perhaps a little bit of expansion in the systems the number it a lot bigger what you're pointing out out especially in the suggestion of supervisor wiener that we analyze subdue citywide to solve our transportation problems that is going to be done so i think

in the future we probably should project our real needs based on what it is going to take you can only clog so many buses and cars into the city streets a city that is a conduit for them people have to pass whether or not they want to from the peninsula to the north bay and highway 101 that is not going to change with that said shows that we only are going to project one $.37 billion net or $30 billion out of this particular program from the $10 billion goal where's the other money coming from where is the other $7 billion. >> commissioners alicia with the mta when the mayor initiated the process a couple years ago to

look at this broader question of funding we identified 10 employed that was collected with the task force a need of $10 billion $3.7 billion is identified that might be formal funding from the government or state the task force recommended that the city pursue a series of revenue manufacture that require the voter approval which will ultimately raise $3 billion in revenue that includes $2500 million general obligation bonds were previewed in november of 2014 and increase for the licenses fee and to the sales tax those raise $3 billion and $3.3 billion unidentified sources the t f s is one piece to meet the needs we also have

with the passage of local funding measures in san francisco we're better able to leverage state and fell funding to raise our local share and anticipate that weed whacking be able to compete at the federal level but the realties there is not an entire program for the $10 billion as yet it is a sixth amateur of funding needs in a short time. >> i presume this explicit exclude the use for special district for area plans that are formatted for the future. >> in terms of anticipating revenue. >> well, i'm thinking about like central selma that is going to be before us and even though this is the baseline and as you

said certain special use district are expected exempted they have hair rules in place such transbay but i assume those past and future that is baseline but we're not be preclude from asking higher amounts u amounts from those particular areas. >> that's right i'll speak to that well. >> that's an opportunity for a lot of funding i have a few other thoughts on what could provide funding thank you. i'll continue with my comments yeah. i agree that we have to get more and one thing i think that people have spoken about the idea of possible having higher fee subsidies i think there might and also a couple of speakers said fee subsidies in the areas where the most growth is happening a better chance of

possible a little bit higher line the outer mission you know doesn't seem to be an interest and precludes the development that might be lower you should consider perhaps a dollar or two more important residential and non-residential in the higher growth areas but you know maybe a dollar or two less than some of the areas something to look at the other things you've got all those exemptions realistically the impacts of affordable housing, of nonprofits housing of all those thin are great as market rate in fact, their even more a higher percentage the residents in those areas probably ride public transportation increasing the need for public transportation so there is an impact and i don't think that exception

is the right thing to do everybody should pay a fraction maybe 2 bucks a square foot or something like that for all those institutions to contribute at least part of impact by the way, from the nexus that much higher it is the same for those groups as for market rate so that maybe another source of funding to include some fee subsidies for all developers even those we're courageously we're courage affordable housing but they've got to pay their way and nonprofits can be ineffectively efficient and have high salaries didn't mean their efficient this is a way to gain a little bit more too i agree with the speakers who said that if there recent a cheshl exception for ucsf it should be applied we're trying

to courage the student housing seems like they're being singled out you off other institutions that don't build student housing are not being charged and fee they're not building housing the one is are shouldn't are singled out or a lesser fee i've talked about lesser fee subsidies maybe ucsf should pay something but make that significantly less than what everybody else so those are my main things and the parking issue i think that that is pretty hard to establish a nexus that is appointment we're including the actual square footage of housing developments; right whether not including providing parking actually, their doing us a favor there will be fewer people using

public transportation if they have cars they add to congressmen but not utilizing what we're approving which is what we're trying to fund and i think the money should be used exclusively for capital operations we'll run it more on a business rates the fee subsidies are the lowest in lowest in the country it is rare to find someone to pay a full fee a senior not full and disabled low we have to apply those rates to have a higher rate of the operations funded by the revenues that are generated by usage because wench got plenty of needs for capital if we start stealing that for operations we'll have a less

usage was people are not going to ride public transit if it takes them one half hour to get to potrero to the outer richmond they'll drive a car or take uber or something else that will benefit us a lot and i agree with yeah. some of the things what the speakers said those are my main thoughts and yeah, that's the summary of my thinking thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask some questions on who is exempt from the person. >> so under people are exempt from property tax you can file

for a exempt from property taxes you occupy the property seems like those properties are exempt from this; right? so daycare or private high school that is nonprofit is it true they'll remain exempt from this. >> correct the existing t d i s is a cheshl program if you exempt from property tax and to do that owning and operating for nonprofit then you'll be exempt and the new t s f the only change the recollection or recognize of the larger institutions and the impact on the transportation system and as lisa said outline in terms of pulling that back for larger post secondary institutions. >> if i may just to clarify for

profit institutions are not exempt. >> correct. >> if you're exempt by prop 13 from paying property tax their exempt except for ucsf what's the thresholds that ucsf falls into. >> it is tied to from the institution is required to file a plaster plan out of downtown 50 thousand square feet of the institutional use within the city if you're downtown it is kicked up to one thousand square feet. >> it not large we've had universities i've not heard of that pay i mean that would trigger an institutional master plan that triggers the plan even though their exempt if property taxes. >> sure right away right now we have i think we have 4 or 5 institutional master plans for

nonprofit universities so on the beacons bookstore now a handful of institutions objective can't count for new institutions establishes over the life of the fee subsidies. >> right what is the policy i mean, i guess i get did don't get the institutional under prop 13 i guess why are we singling outpost institutions that file. >> the issues we started to try to capture such as impact and recognizing the uses and major uses that create a lot of impact on the system and the questions are answered by one of my colleagues. >> hi commissioners the major institutions are

numerous trip yes, i did. >> we have a $10 billion investment needs for transportation and we have been asking all kinds of people to come forward to contribute to meeting that pike property owners that are paying nor property tax for the general obligation bonds we looked at the level of impact that each of those different types of development are placing on the system the major institutions the private nonprofit universities and the hospitals are some of the biggest impact creators of all the types of developments in the city there was a decision made to postpone the fee on the hospitals until after they've implemented their seismic requirements and the board of supervisors would have to affirmatively vote we couldn't force that vote you know in the future on the board of supervisors so because of

that consideration the hospitals fee will essentially be poenld and the reality has been for many of the hospitals that are rendering significant work in san francisco we've ended up with a development agreement they've troubled the equivalent of the impact fees we've seen that from at least a component of the major institutions where that's not applied not realm of post secondary education in the past >> for reasons like high schools for instance, there recent a lot of high schools that generated trip generations they're not i mean, i get the hospitals i don't know if i quite get the posts secondary. >> the thresholds of the institutional master plan requirements was intended to capture the essentially the large institution in the city so 50 thousand square feet rash in

the downtown, within hundred thousand square feet in the downtown this distinction within the larger institutions part of it to just as we've looked at both the nexus sort of the amount of impact created an commercial development and market rate residential development versus the feasibility of those to pay as we're looking at the nonprofit community a difference between a small nonprofit with limited funds resources and a major institutions in terms of capacity to pay the fee we've tried to strike a balance and putting forward what we think is the best solution to meeting the transportation needs. >> did you consider recycle the size thresholds will be nonprofits that really not that big. >> the thresholds is embedded in the institutional master plan paw no, no but i guess we're

singling out schools but there are other nonprofits that have on their own buildings and have more than 50 thousand square feet of space don't get captured here they are nonprofits not necessarily their schools. >> so i don't know. i get point we're trying to raise as much revenue as possible certainly whether or not i can high schools or private schools they'll be lifted but they generate magnificent generations of aggregate you know we're not necessary judging them we're not creating all nonprofits as equal it is odds on the posts secondary i'd rather see hospitals charged now and posted

secondary exempt because i don't know. i, see more of a rational for charging hospitals than kind of singling out some schools under the i mp post secondary 19 if it is ucsf that is ended up doing it just do clarify is this the housing portion of the post secondary or if they - >> it's any aspect of that. >> not just the housing if they expand their campus. >> can and clarify it's not just ucsf that will be paying the fee outlet posts secondary institutions that will be subject the projection and the thought prepared those other institutions don't have an expansion plan but for now in the future they do very they have a pay. >> the cac has to charge the

fee. >> that's right as all right. >> so that's my i mean, i see i would - i would advocate more for the hospitals not being exempt and the posts secondary institutions making them consistent i lump them into educational institutions i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say but on the affordable housing in this discussion of the ami threshold i don't see ami listed in the ordinance where does it come up? >> civic section. >> it's in section 406 article 4 is the article in the planning codes that deals with the impact fees and section 4 of

specifically talked about the configurations we have this in place as mentions for the many impact fees but currently at 80 percent ami. >> but this doesn't include the inclusionary housing. >> right they're required to pay the impact fees as well. >> so for stand alone hundred percent hundred and 50 percent configuration. >> up to. >> but hundred percent affordable. >> it requires all the residential units in the project be restricted so they're at the hundred 50 ami or less. >> okay. all right. so that clarifies that i thought inclusionary housing we're not necessarily building affordable housing at that level we may i know it's called that in the bonds its national a debate but

if we do it's part of a large project of other levels of ami it should be exempted that's what we're saying here i agree with that. >> and then on the combraisht was there any talk - so whose grargd if you apply today for a permit you start the environmental review review your 50 percent grandfathered. >> so the proposal as currently worded essential the thresholds would be whether or not you've submitted a development application and the ordinance clarifies that will not include a pta so that's determination of

the- that's united states cut off two whether or not our exempt versus paying volunteering percent the fee and for non-residential projects both the projects that submitted an application and those had their application approved they'll take take the current t d i f raised so for the proposal to really acknowledge if you have your approval you have an exception about your finances for the project. >> and what clarifies as a development application. >> maybe corey can specify. >> for purposes of grandfathering you need to file a environmental review operation or application as any one of the various entitlements we may require in the codes whether the conditional use or the variance or the downtown interrogation or

on office allocation. >> a couple codify folks. >> i should say a building permit that qualifies as well. >> a couple of people brought up make sense those who filled the applications in the last year were more aware of this coming down the piecemeal than those who filed two or three years some of that grandfathering for the larceny ye 50 percent if you filled the year before, did you consider that i mean the rational. >> so there actually was an in the initial round of outreach we discussed 25 percent fee grairt rate for the residential projects but in conversation

with housing organizations and developers the feedback was that is not enough particularly for residential projects in the pipeline to accounted for their pathway financial decisions a wide variance across the project types. >> ii am open to 25 percent of the filed a year ago from the time to maybe 50 percent if you filed our development application prior that that but again i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say and on the amount i mean this is the most challenging portion it is kind of you know we're making sausage per verbally and looking at this study and doing study off that study and coming up with numbers item it is a little bit of guesswork what the

predicament rates are kind of looking at what existing rates are can you remind us of the fee subsidies what they if anyone has that where they are generally like the eastern neighborhoods or my mind fee just a general idea. >> it varies a lot arrest eastern neighborhoods generally between 10 and $20 a square foot and a market octavia a $20 and transit center is higher than that or 5 conflict of interests a secret something like that. >> the fee subsidies cover. >> currently they cover transit and complete streets and childcare the proposal is that the transit portion will role into the t s f with credit.

>> i within we can go down the paths of every one of the uses ask for hospital and police and fire everybody can justify an impact fee we we realize think vice presidents to pay for that i get it the transit folks want to charge the maximum doesn't leave room if you want to do affordable housing are add a rec and park fee or something else i agree with commissioner antonini at some point it can't only be on the backs of new residents or projects it has to be spread out i did a contraction a modest hundred and 50 thousand parcel tax it should be in in addition to sails and there is 3 hundred

and 70 thousand units that's $55 million a year it's $1.6 billion over thirty years and to me that's a hundred times better source of few minutes it's there every year and you can bond this comes and goes with development there's not a limit also appetite for additional fee subsidies i get the needs for the fee i'd like to see this added to the future of fee subsidies i don't like in a new development i've lived here for a while i'd gladly pay for other things so that's beside the point (laughter). >> i wouldn't know where to go with the fee it seems right you know, i see is it right for a

$2 million you know condo being a little bit low maybe $10,000 for the unit. >> commissioner avalos was talking about in other areas of the city it may seem high i agree we look at this is that allowed to change that based on this where in the city or based on the sales price of the unit. >> commissioners kate stacey from the district attorney's office are two components of the analysis in studying in fee i think staff has explained the city conducted. >> nuking study in order to establish what is the burden of proof created by new development that's the maximum fee that under the california's mitigation act that the city could impose but the second part it is the feasibility issue and the city can certainly determine that a fee is more feasible to

pay a higher amount within that nexus ceiling and in some part of city for uses it is really more of a policy question and to insure that the commission and the city when it adopts the fee subsidies has a rational explaining those difference feasibility sort policy determination are but certainly the city can determine a new development in one area will be sixth less able to pay a fee whereas another development in office of the city administrator another area of the city could pay a higher fee it is feasible. >> if i may as long as it's within the nexus the nexus sets our ceiling from a legal prospective but the feasibility is really more of a

weighing of policies and also an analysis of what feasible for a particular kind of project and that could vary depending upon the area. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> okay thank you very much staff a great presentation and all the work thanks commissioner hillis and commissioner antonini for taking many of my questions so far so maybe i'll not have as many just a couple of quick things commissioner hillis talked about the exemption for cheshl organization and applying to the secondary organizations i agree it seems age called out or the there are other types of institutions that have a master plan hospitals and second post secondary and other ones but overall i agree with the policy

that larger institutions that are inducing growth from the neighborhood need to support the transit improvements i don't know if it is enough to pay the fee subsidies for muni that is clear those fee subsidies are not supporting new capital infrastructure as well as ongoing operating costs we need to look at the growth of those institution with inducing commissioner hillis pointed out a gray line i went a discussion of san francisco conjecture try are master plan if their coming up to us today, i wonder if we are having the same conversation whether or not they're trying to grow engrossment they're talking about more students housing and their smaller i'm not sure i agree although the policy was not clearly called out in the

staff report i agree with the sentiment in terms of commissioner avalos brought this up it is called out in the staff report as the legislation there are many areas the city with major developments not subject commissioner avalos called out a few hunters point and particular case and i'll plug those this is the greatest way to get the conflict impacts of the areas seeing large growth at one time you're putting a lot of development into one concentrated period of time i think that is something i'm not sure how many other commissioners may share the sentiment that commissioner avalos was putting out there today, i for one am total comfortable with projects for the redevelopment projects with the agreements and the other agreements to, exempted from

this oftentimes they pay an unequivalent amount and we see i think tangible results because what they build or fund is part of the plans so i agree with keeping that in there i think in terms of the level of the fee it is challenging commissioner hillis said it right sort of like making sausage a nexus study we agree was very well done and puts a cpa cap out there that most poem agree upon but i think what you're talking about is okay. what's the band below that maximum the feasibility assessment was one but i think there is less agreement an whether or not the fee assessment agreement accepts that band and some maybe below that band i'm challenged because in terms of can i opine on what

the fee subsidies shall be perhaps higher because we still have not had the joint meeting with the sfmta one of the things i'd ask for pushing them to really be specific being what is we're trying to prioritize in terms of capital infrastructure and maintenance of different portions the mta's asset it is hard to push for a particular number whether it is square footage fee or the cumulative "'question: fee we'll get over 10 over and over 20 years you also know you're not going to be able to fund the entire bankruptcy it is a big piece missing how to file that bucket, in fact, that's a fantastic idea but not to hundred percent so the question what can you do with what you have if you're going to try to put a few more

drops if the bucket when i been should that fee be higher or lower what's is additional impact that we'll get in terms of of the capital infrastructure development and the operating maintenance investment and because the mta's has not been clear i don't know; right? so other than saying the fee can be higher it's hard to advocate for a specific level i don't know what you know sort that credential impact what the capital investment lists sow hopefully, the supervisors will get that and be able to maybe think about increase that fee to get those specific things right now it not that specific and

things really challenged i like the idea of fee graduations in different areas but i'd like to hear from other commissioners clear ideas what if actually means i'm not sure that means by just areas like you know circuit courts or areas of the city would that be by zoning types or size of projects that idea is too nebulous for saying it sounds good but the general concept of fee subsidies for different areas how high growth make sense. >> commissioner wu. >> so i'll go off the commissioners comments as far as the grandfathering it is helpful to hear the independence of the applications 080 so if it can be

in the actual language it is good to be specific i'll are supporter supportive of some idea of graduated garth maybe projects that were approved one year ago or something like that jill 2014 maybe they get a 25 percent reduction whereas others get what is prototype. >> you mean approves or submitted applications and submitted i'm sorry following the structure that was laid out as to the fee amount the garth is a one time but the feasibility studies states i think it was said in public comment at 50 percent or hundred and sro percent of what was previously proposed there is it and impact most development all

that to say i think that is room to push the boundary the letter signed by the coalition suggested 33 percent of the nexus i think that this is our chance to set it going forward and seeing how much development is coming through. >> one other question i had was about area plans so could staff answer in the t f p is approved and implemented does it reduce the fee subsidies in the existing area plans. >> it will pay the difference which is higher they already the area plans pace the transportation fee and the difference. >> the they'll pay the new fee they'll pay the equivalent of the new fee i'm sorry. >> so, yes it is sort of a

complex proposal so essentially as john stated they'll pay the existing area plan that politics to residential uses and this area reductions is for residential uses first of all, the non-restricted residential pace the fee subsidies 0 residential they'll pay the new fee the t f f and the transit component they'll bet considered by that amount up to the full amount for instance, market octavia this is the reduction of 25 square feet so the reduction fee will be $5.34 compared to the 74. >> this focused fee subsidies in the area plan will be. >> i don't know. >> foelthd down.

>> essential so did staff consider asking those in the area plans to pay the fee and the full t f s as that's something we received february and the neighborhood cac that was not a universal sentiment but one idea and actually for the questions on the methodology the slide showing the circulations. >> okay. if you could quickly run through that. >> here's an example with market octavia the fill impact fee is 1092 per square feet that is 1866 and even the transit is credited at $2 and credited for $16 plus. >> i'd like the xrgs of not

doing the credit. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess several things that was interesting it comes on the hills of the subway master plan that supervisor wiener talked about i'll below this up in a world-class cities the growth to help to pay for the growth of the world-class city it is a good huge start small business mentioned amendments and that concerns me because we don't have that before us i don't know what the impact was can small business elaborate on that. >> i want to make sure i know exactly what we are dealing with if we take a vote. >> so as specified earlier the memo were submitted last night and wrought and paper copied to the commission so there's 4 key issues that were addressed with

the substitute owners they're considered minor and non-substantive the first was that the ordinance adams a timing of payment saeks section that is language in the other areas basically clearly states when the fee is paid the second sat application of the mixing so in section 406 exemption the mixing that was not the intention the proposal we're dealing with the t f s. >> that's a correction. >> that's a correction solemnly swear similar for the hope sf to exempt the entire project hope sf is both the market rate and

below market rate those are blended projects we want to see those projects being built so the substitute ordinance cleared the exemption to all ordinances and it was mentioned the small business exemption was all the time previously the exception applied toize spaces along the cumulative space was less than 5 thousand square feet and what was amended now the proposal allows for small operators to co-locate in a single-space this coffers for example, we have a large commercial kitchens or several kitchens operating those facilities but they're each less than 5 thousand square feet will be exempted. >> first place an entrepreneur and wanted to have a space that

is shared i was like the master lease holder and this cube and that cube and that cube would it apply to me everything else is sub leasing it is generally, you don't get a cohort space by a hundred square feet and someone else how how does that work. >> we'll coming if an office space 0 another small office space. >> so there's a building out there. >> okay. >> 6 thousand square feet i want to create a co-location office space so i rent the space within code; right? but parcel everything out to 60 entities do i have a pay this. >> corey with the planning department staff that specific example you'll not be exempt the

core right now thank you d i f has a limited fund of money that goes toward the policy credits it, it is a small business credit stipulates that the existing and the resulting business had to be loneliness 5 thousand square feet you're starting as a small business and ending as a small business with 6 thousand square feet what is a small business that sierra club removes the criteria for example, an empty calories that is 25 thousand square feet from the current small business policy credit if you want to carve out 25 thousand square feet or under 5 thousand misquotes you'll not get the credit the existing credit is

thousand square feet we want the outcome and in this situation the minor correction was that in that somewhere scenario if you have over 5 thousand square feet and breakdown we're talking about pdrs to non-residential if you beaked it into individual units that are less than 5 thousand square feet they'll have individual business tenants and then all the spaces will essentially their thousand square feet they'll be exempt from the fee if you're talking about an individual use or facility by it's nature break down into coworker we'll look at that as one use overall. >> that's not my concern. >> but literally great wonderful thanks. >> another question an overarching question the

$3 billion needs we have a bonds that coffers this over 2030 period and a gap 6 is $.6 billion; right? so i kind of think everybody should share in the bonds really the property owners and maybe some passed that on to the tenants i'm not sure that is allowed through prop a the developers and the new residents are paying this through the t s f and the new residents and the other two sales tax it is disproerpts it is a large amount fall on people that may not be able to afford ii want to make sure the burden

is look at as well. >> understood. >> that comes up to say this the right amount to charge developers. >> understood there are certain types of goods noting not subject to sales tax just to be clear from the when we starred it process a couple years ago look at globally the transportation system we had a $6.3 billion need we've realized why the this is an obligation bonds we're at 5 point will 8 so the proposal to levy a vehicle license fee and increase the savings and geobonds thaichl they'll invest the 3 about the 3

of those measures are successful. >> i must have read this slide wrong. >> we would like to materialize that. >> okay. >> so we're not $3.3 billion short we've begun the process of raising the resources but it is a long road and the number of actions that still need to be take place with the t f d just to clear the transit impact fees this is the expansion of that to residential uses and the major institutions that generates over 15 years that same timeframe 2 hundred employed to the $1.2 billion is captured under the identified funds so i do think there's an ongoing question around the appropriate sources and what does any individual or different type of

empty the unfunded issue is that we have moved to a position where we have taken more local responsibility for this type of investment than we've had to do in the past the reality is in prior generations we've been able to count on federal funding the fact that federal fund has not kept pace with the system is unfortunate is a and it is spilled that he local level you're seeing more and more local jurisdictions to solve this issue if we have 80 are to look at this is commissioner antonini's issue? the trust amount of investment required in the transportation system i don't know if we can ever solve that without sate state and federal support because of the

magnitude of the dollars. >> like affordable housing. >> correct so i think part of the goal with the transportation 2030 project tomato misses the local support and the local investment to position ourselves to better articulate our need at state or federal level. >> i guess another question can something walk us through are we charging the right amount i know if it is a sausage making exercise i looked at each one of these and kind of think i got it is the sensitivity analysis especially on the for sale one you start with the price that can be released by office rental start subtracting and get this amount how does that work i mean

is if was it the developer margin was always 22 and a half percent what number well in is the right and this is the wrong amount. >> i'll pass this one to lisa. >> there were a lot of tables boil it down what was that kind of right line i don't want to cross that whatever the reason incentivizes. >> that's a great question as you mentioned a process to develop the methodology together all the potential costs so for the hard construction costs and but except for the lands that is calculated separately and subtract all our excuse me. from our revenues so in that 53 vary

versus ownership and renting and the return of the developer margin so that is also part of the kind of costs side of it and then your left with the land resingling suicidal to the windows we're looking at first of all, you know as we develop those before we apply the fee is the project viable and certain projects in certain areas the city where development is for the supported and the next step now we know the baseline let's set levels and hundred and hundred 25 and hundred 50 and 250 that went through with each are prototype this is the guts collect a reasonable rage in

terms of the fluctuation and land crisis the idea being that you know when developers are entering into agreements for the price of the land may not have incorporated the cost of the fee as part of their calculus so 10 pears was a reasonable thresholds. >> that's the contingency. >> it is the contingency. >> i see the logic so a lot of the fee subsidies we have that come if market octavia this is 25 and the pdr of 29 i said parts the city it doesn't pencil out the residual lands supports that i'm supportive of the fee subsidies by location to drive

the kind of fee subsidies in that area i think that goes hand in glove with the transportation i think a few commissioners mentioned that that is a good thing to explore and do a flat fee so is the fee amount right. i see with the sensitivity analysis i said it it could be a little bit more if we had folks that want to explore that how much you know it is on index for each year. >> so all our impact fees and develop fee subsidies. >> what about revenue inflation i saw some one thousand square feet and next year 12 hundred no indexing for that the capacity is pay based on the inflation is not counted can we counts for that. >> currently the way the fee

subsidies that are administered by the planning department are in nexus with the single construction costs circulation so that doesn't necessarily account for all the dynamics of the market i'm sure we can get the possibility of what you're suggesting. >> i'm talking about the conversation i had with a developer they said i don't care about the inflation so i keep cob do that why not look at the windfall why can't we get more. >> i wanted to add one thing we wrote into the ordinance every 5 years a nexus feasibility study that will make adjustments in the fee the market can go up and down we will look at. >> when the market went down we

did the deferral so maybe you want to make that 3 years 5 y k years might be too long and sausage making maybe okay. i guess the exempts i look at whatever we decide in the policy goals; right? so small businesses are hurting i don't want to burn them we've land there and small development, profit margins are less than half i'm okay with that avenue, i think that commissioner antonini mentioned that you know, i talked to e talked to don fawning they have to get money together my thing is this from a public policy will discourage this if we there's a fragile way to build. >> mr. cohen.

>> i think you mentioned you represent nonprofits. >> would you be surprised at the answer i gave to you, of course, i'm actually frankly commissioner antonini surprised to hear you say what you said earlier the long-standing exemption for nonprofits not just housing but nonprofit development activities has an absolute logic this is city funding infrastructure it is called nonprofit for a reason there is not profit laying around and expected to invest in the city infrastructure nonprofit affordable housing is built with public funding if you talking about shifting money from the mayor's office of housing to mta that should be proposed we're talking about shifted money from expelling to mta i should proposed that there is no infrastructure money

that's as apples and oranges for affordable housing works from market rate housing morph to hear there is insufficiencies or overpaid staff is rather offensive it is terrorizing the picture we see in all the brochures about san francisco development a typically affordable housing their some of the most efficient and proud pews of developments i beg to differ about that and i think the exception is well placed where it is. >> i think that clears up any question i have on that thank you. >> student housing i guess a couple of requests it looks like we want to sensitive vices universities to build the institutions we have large institution that is for profit not building student housing i don't know. i don't feel good been singling out one entity may

be one sharing the burden maybe someone under 50 thousand pay a little bit maybe if they've over this their senior should be more sharing arrest waivers one other question i have so we have a large for profit institution if so coming before us on october 1st they buy a residential building and housing to housing is that a change of use you know this as happened over and over and over and over. >> sure from the building was housing to begin with and their remarketing it for student housing not a change of use for the impact fees we're with the t s f we're collapsing the land use buckets to 3 there's only residential and unknown

residential and pdr so individual dwelling units, group housing is considered residential you'll trigger the impact fee from a lower to a higher fee use from pdr to residential or non-residential. >> thank you, thank you. >> i guess on the reductions of any third point from i looked at what kind of triggered me we looked at the mission controls and why would we say this project in and out when necessary filled the application they knew it was coming january 1st or whatever there should be some type of graduation how long have you had our project going if you had it three or four more exempt than someone that filed recently, i

support a reduction and the late issue thought we had how you raised and spend money the eligible use for under the t d i f pretty be flexible you have money that could be used for capital plus partitioned or whatever maintenance but under this only that portion that the 61 percent the base t d i f fee has the remaining portion can you clarify. >> i want to make sure we have enough flexibility. >> there is still funded for the flexibility for operating purposes the ordinance essentially puts in writing around the use of t d i f in practices the funds we're using to replace the doors on the

vehicles or over hauls are sitting in the operating budget in a practical terms the funding we receive that is more practical for the general fund we'll put towards that we don't have to we have funding to pay for that quad capital expense but. >> so hundred percent of this new t f f could go to whatever. >> no what the nexus study did there are different categories of need that are generated if new development so it allocates the percentage table indicates you know 60 percent of the funds go to the t d i f and the operating bucket for the prevent maintenance and the bike projects and the capacity

expansion projects for muni, bart and caltrans. >> maybe the master is not working in my head it is not midnight it is me, you have an ever increasing number to apply the 50 perris to so that door problem over a large fleet is met by the 51 experience percent. >> it is 61 percent. >> so you have a capital portion that can be more flexible. >> right audience so okay each one combruz more money goes out so the same proposition. >> right. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> great program the devil is in the details you see by all the questions many enter linked questions questions you don't know i don't why i don't how to

make sausage but i have a question would you mind coming up one more time there are 3 function in the system called buy, build and run those are the 3 categories in our previous t d i f the funds raised addresses all 3 of them i want you to firmer or explain think t s i f addresses those only buy and build. >> it is buy, build and run. >> in the new system. >> in the new system. >> are there any changes in the irrigations how funds with being used are they same or less or more in the 3 categories. >> the concern you're hearing from the previous speakers the difference between the t s f and

the t d i f under the existing transit development fee subsidies no language constraining the use of the funds to any particular purpose within the realm of the noouks under the t s i f the ordinance contains the languages the run goes toward prevent maintenance programs so it adds language that constrains the use of few minutes to that purpose prosecute a practical stand point no diverse between what we're doing today and proposed under the ordinance. >> i'm concerned that change in language somewhere politics change in the way you do things when our running a large transportation system with technology that changes much, much faster they do not have the

flexibility do what you need to do when you need to do it that's a push back to the restriction on the fee i'll have that and have it over with thank you when it comes to the issue of fee subsidies amount we're in a bio ant economy i'm practical about money i assume with the nexus of a spread you've carefully detailed i'll not grab for 50 percent but a minimum economic 33 percent or 35 percent knowing that when the economy resends from this place will have to go go counsel from 25 percent to less or 33 percent

and then go to 25 percent looking at the transportation system all san francisco in comparison to other cities around the world and i'm going to stretch it out to look at the transportation systems around the worldwide or world we have an interesting transportation system that grew along the premise of a suburban system rather than an urban system it's a clear in the way that bart stations don't serve the city other than in incredible stops to outline communities what happened on the tail of having a successful bart system came the ideas of expanding transportation the way it is in comparison to others cities fantastic i'm happy about it; however, there are many holes

when you move into different parts of city you know very well whether there is not enough frequency of buses and no streetcar cars and many, many holes with gentrification across the system will ultimate be required does this particular economy will not make us want to grab money to plan examinations of the system into those areas where they've always been missing not only those areas where there is never been i don't want to take that much further but grab the opportunities of expanding this system in anticipation that growth will our everywhere growth equally to the entire city the second point i share the

concerns of the fee waivers i'd like to see fee graduation as indicated by commissioner avalos and the one reminding question the area plans and difference between ordering new rates that is logical why are suds exempt i believe that suds are from my prospective not the best way of managing transportation because the length of time that suds give themselves as a base for the agreements are far too far to long to treat them as islands suds are as much part of the city's system they were lucky enough to get a special deal i believe there should be

regulated similar to what area plans do. >> thank you and i think unifying you're referring to the development agreement i mean those are practice writing these prongs that either have existing agreements in the future it is not their necessarily exempt but spelled out in the terms of whatever the agreement the contract that was made at that time that goes before the commission and board it is up to you whether or not their pay the fee subsidies higher or lower they're not exempted by a legal instrument it trumpets anything else. >> their agreement we cannot undo a contract with a piece of legislation. >> and any future suds. >> not an sud. >> suds have development agreements and mraishd and 5 m

and treasure island will have one with the developments agreements that should be completely integrated and particularly to what everyone else has to pay i'm not the maker of development agreements but for the treated in any in any way, shape, or form differently including the times in which the fee subsidies are featured feathered into the larger picture. >> i'm just throwing that out i've been questioning that all along. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm not sure what our process is going to do be today i'll assume we'll be voting to recommend approval although i'm not sure we'll be able to have anything with all those technical points we may have to have those findings they'll be

forwarded to the board of supervisors that maybe a practical way i'll make a few comments and maybe where we will have those included in the recommendations so, anyway i'm very much in agreement with commissioner johnson where development agreement we could a have redevelopment we have something similar in taxing from the finance but the money goes back to the area in which the project is took place to mitigate the impacts of that project we have to make sure it is high enough to not only mitigate it but provide some funds towards citywide needs and that i think the applicability of this towards the existing developments is a legal question i think whether or not you can charge this above and beyond what wear agreed to say problematic i think so you know

0 that's just has to be researched by the city attorney and others but i would certainly be in favor of the getting the fund as high for this need also someone brought up the point of revenue from other sources and figuring out the revenues from others businesses that will not be building something new and have their own impact on the transportation needs that is a decision for another day it is a tax on what is being build new rather than what exists there maybe a way whether a parcel tax or whatever in keeping with prop 13 or whatever in place legally there maybe a way to unlock the

evaluate amount of revenue this comes up when we talk about transbay all those existing building not paying the transbay fee they're not in the zone or not under the agreements they have the same impacts as some of the ones that are now obligated to pay that's a great source of funding if we could find out a way. >> faster casting the net i'm a small business owner i'll saying i'll be happy to pay but understand a small fee or $0.50 or $0 per square feet of anything in my business in addition to the 8 hundred fee or in addition to my office make sense and helps i think this should be broadway and mr. cohen makes the example of robbing

passport to pay paul not sure but if an impact small fee make sense for all small developments and nonprofits and affordable and all helps towards this need they generate an impact that is as great as anyone else but we understand the take a look budget it should be a low impact fee. >> fee subsidies for different areas it looks like a lower end of the feasibility i think we talked about numbers here between 6 and 16 and 14 and 36 and erroring to the lower side of the fee subsidies so certainly, if the city feels it the prudent to add a dollar are

two where the areas the demand is higher and subtract a dollar or two in areas where the demand is more challenged to be able to build anything i'm thinking specifically by the supervisor district perhaps sgriblts 11, 4 and 1 or 7 those are areas where there's a hard time generating a lot of construction of new commercial space so there maybe an argument made for that being lower i've mentioned the exception for ucsf should be included not to single them out if they have the charitable thing we have to equal in the institutions and grandfathering some commissioners brought the grashth it is reasonable if sms

something in the system for a long time they should get the garth or maybe the last year maybe a lessor orer amount and they would be many will be approved and approved go under the old system as i understand both commercial and residential do the t d i if if already approved that's my summary on the issue. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i was going to try to macho motion i move to recommend approval of the ordinance with the following changes so on the grandfathering so project that have applied

development applications after july 1st, 2014, will have a 25 percent fee waiver, those that have applied prior to july 1st, 2014, have a 50 percent fee waiver and 25 percent for projects from july one 2015 to when it was adopted on the comments i'm recommending removal taking out the secondary institution language so that they'll continue to be exempt like they are now i've heard comments in my justification most secondary institutions in san francisco now are exempt for outlet reasons the ucsf exemption because it is city owned - so you know, i think we're getting ucsf and cca and

other small you institutions i'll remove that language so they'll secondary institutions will continue to be exempt i'll add backhoes and not wait the 10 years so they'll not be exempt and on the fee recommend that the board consider a graduated fee rate by neighborhood where the feasibility reports shows the projects are more feasible or a consider not other setting the fee subsidies that kind of gets it where we're seeing a lot of eastern neighborhoods and market octavia you wouldn't have that offset to the existing fee. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i appreciate you commissioner hillis for raising a motion i

was going to try to make one as well that sounds decendents to me i have flashbacks when with our looking at short-term rentals to just a couple of things that may make it into motion we'll see none addressed the summations about the inclusion of the parking issue aware or make sure we talk about it i know that commissioner hillis caught it my person view on that again, it is about one area of building that is inducing growth to me that's the area you're putting bodies cars are not bodies i don't think that you know we want to change modes but as for a policy prospective i have a hard time frankly creating it in nickel

and dimed of parking to transit frankly, i think that is a way of me be able to say we want few cars in the policy then that's a separate policy i want to mention that i'm not in favor of including that type of fee i don't want that to get lost in the shuffle i think the only other thing i'll say i have a question of hope sf that's the one that doesn't seem immaterial i think about sunlz and others and to say that oh, by way of we're exempting all advertisements if hope sf not just refrain from this fee is not an image material change my question is

can sometime remind me on hope sf how we're paying for transit i i know that most hope sf projects are some ever sort of development agreement or some governing documents it covers the open space and other improvements if someone can give me the quick summary. >> he'll let someone else answer that the reason it is in material the one exempted the affordable housing and market rate housing the way it was written originally and the change to include non-residential space that's. >> relative small space that's my conclusion it is immaterial. >> so the city attorney can correct me so that was why it was immaterial. >> i disagree for the larger

projects potrero hill is not a mrurt outlet not non-residential i like tripling the density so it's to the immaterial to say you were exempting not exempting non-residential and now you are that's not a minor change. >> to be clear commissioners one is it the intensity and the market rate housing is subsidizing the affordable housing on the sites it makes those sites very, very changing from a financing stand point bus not only pagan for that but others infrastructure the new infrastructure on the sites those projects have been in the piecemeal for quite a while so under the graisht exception i don't know the exact dates the

applications but we'll look at that wife that had the expectation to have to pay this fee the residential uses were not subject to this i get the sentiment and a fair amount of market rate housing but the cross subsidy is making the finance that combined with the infrastructure is making the financing of those projects very, very challenging. >> just to be clear that's not my sentiments the way we're talking about the communication those larger projects and hope sf i want to be clear other than the reasoning this is not the amendments were 234089 sort of billed as immaterial changes that was not immaterial i want to clarify why and what's happening my sentiment is make the changes and i think we should maybe on the motion real

quick on the free graduation by different areas perhaps we should make it something specific they'll chew on sort of make that a specific finding. >> family some of the stroirl districts cover an economic conditions within the city. >> i wasn't suggesting go this is an actual suggestion i think that is i'm still unclear on what that means oh, that was when someone made the suggestion if we're passing on to the board of supervisors we should not put them in the confusion we're asking for or what we think is a good idea. >> commissioner richards. >> i think to the point commissioner johnson made if we do anything if we can peg it to some type of sensitivity analysis there is not the margin

in certain areas to build x type of development but over here more than enough maybe come up with a number that can be applied to anywhere that's my guess and second thing want to peg on the actual amount what's the motion on the amount of fee did we coffer that. >> i want with the existing fee and consider an increase. >> anybody from staff if we go ahead and move certain ones of those up this is i know an analysis in front of the me if we took one 25 which will be $5 increase over the $20 correct. >> what's that doing to the sensitivity analysis let's coming up with a number and recommending that. >> so 25 residential and 20

office and 29 pdrs i'm not interested in the pdrs but if you look at the other two the 25 and the 20 and office and take into account the office and say we want to go with a hundred and 25 percent make it 25 what will it do for the feasibility. >> remind me is the feasibility. >> it's. >> it's right here. >> what the feasibility analysis shows it essentially what was studied rates interested no 2012 when the t f f concept so the feasibility analysis study what what whether happen if ars rates are applied or increased by a hundred and 25 or hundred and 50 or 2 hundred plus what happens to the different development types of

under those scenarios it various depending on the types of project and where is it located how far they tip into the feasible based on the rates you're increasing. >> i'm looking at the 11 millions square feet. >> rather than trying to we're not going to be able to answer that but maybe the motion can say the board consider in certain areas raising the fee subsidies up to 25 percent of noouks nexus and what's the analysis. >> i think i could support that i'll make a motion. >> i'll amend my motion. >> we said 33 percent. >> up to 33. >> then i had one other question motion i'd like to make to have a reset period to be 3 years versus 5 and or the analysis.

>> to look at the fee the justification for the current fee up and down 3 years is that acceptable to the motion maker. >> 5 years is the mandatory but earlier upon request of the board of supervisors or is mayor. >> we recommend. >> or include yourselves. >> okay. i like that idea even better we'll have a joint meeting with the mta. >> is that okay commissioner hillis. >> okay. it's okay with me okay thanks. >> commissioner antonini all yeah, i'm okay with the motion i just needed a classification on the 33 and 1/3rd 33 over what the exist fee is is that what you're saying. >> only the nexus. >> oh, the nexus so i'm looking at the feasibility study has a range of 6 to 16 and 14 to 6

i'll be more inclined to you know raise it a little bit in those areas rather than marshall that was within the development feasibility range we don't want anything beyond the range. >> it is currently like 25. >> and my other question for the maker is the grandfathering okay. we said july 1st it is now september 10th so how about september 1st instead of july 1st, 2014, for the combrairth because this is even a year ago you wanted to make it july 1st. >> yeah. >> i feel like this has been out there for a long time it wasn't thought of yesterday it is has been actively in the mta commission. >> it's been discussed nobody knows the numbers i think that i

doubt 20 two many people knew this july 1st, 2014, that was coming up cement first, you, maybe make a case there was some thought that's my suggestion on that amendment. >> i mean i'd rather stick with just like first things take to along the initial development application you've done early in the possess process you'll not see those projects for another year or 18 months it is 3 months. >> all right. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess one last to the point of the dated i remember hearing when i as the open think octavia cca that has been out there a long time one last question over time practice changes so i had that question

around you know reflects the common practices anything in the current common practices that happened historically so court practice i want to make sure that the flexibility is captured in what we're going to be able to spend the money on is there anything missing. >> yeah. i think hiv the mta has used the trait concocting to pay the operators salaries to the bus driver salaries. >> so this was excluded. >> that would be excluded under the new t s f. >> affordable health care okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm wondering if we could add to lower our affordable housing to hundred and 20 percent rather than hundred and 50 partially because we've not explored avoiding 50 and

currently at passenger door 20 we're offsetting the general policy we can amend that to resolve that earlier points i think at the moment i'll refer prefer to stay and one 20 and take it a slight higher rates knowing we'll have to come down in the economy sends us into another direction much further into wealthier times we'll use the 33 percent but for the time bein that's the rights number. >> commissioner johnson. >> i'd like to see the motion is amended to have the i'm one 20 and not one 50 and the amount

of fee to 33 percent. >> i did not quite understand you made that intentional commissioner hillis i couldn't quite - >> the fee is 20 what's recommended it 25 percent i think the motion says we've ask the the board to consider increasing it in conditioner areas up to 33 percent that is feasible that responds to what supervisor avalos said in some neighborhoods even at 25 percent may not be practical so you know it allows the board to consider the retails rates up to 33 percent under the graduated system. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i don't know commissioner hillis if you're considering that first point for the motion to my pinch

on the keep it at one 50 we have few references to sensitive vices that from one 20 to one 50 this is one way of doing it so i recommend that we keep that piece the way it is. >> yeah, i'm now my responsibility i know there is debate with over michlt housing i don't know that is the place to necessarily put a stake in the ground on that from the debate is out at one 50 if so city burglary subsidy there not on a affordable housing project that includes the one 50 or 60 percent or lower on one part of the project that's those an affordable housing project that should fall under the exemption

again, we're not asking for inclusionary alter one 50 that's included in 2, 3, 4 inclusionary at one hundred i'm comfortable the fee subsidies are hundred percent of affordable housing and 50 is fine that's what's called out in the bonds to us it's the bond can be used for bond, etc. at one 50 and the bonds should be exempt. >> commissioner richards and i think that is a good train of the thoughts another question anything besides the bonds that mentioned that new one-on-one 50 we've struggled with that and said hundred 50 is maybe the new upper end. >> we have a person from the mayor's office of housing. >> anything protectively coming

the one 50 is the upper ends of the old one 20. >> sophie from the mayor's office of housing and community development i just ran up the stairs i'm panting a little bit certainly not sure if it was addressed but in the affordable housing general obligation bonds they extend up to hundred and 50 percent i'm so the proposed michlt program i anticipate should the bond pass in the future we'll develop a michlt rental program up to one 50 percent i'm f that doesn't currently exempt it only applies to those units emptied subsidized. >> maybe our recommendations in the bonds passes the one 50 is the new standard but if it does

we'll going back go back to the one 20. >> i'll reiterate about the hundred and 50 percent i'm we've identified that as there are affordability gaps that extend to one 50 ami and beyond the model we use there was thinking about a family of two teachers two children and working families preserve the options for michlt programs but extend it this their difficult to get to the programs like tax credits and others so certainly, if the bonds passes that will pave the way to creating oversee programs but whether or not the bond passes under those a need at that level i want to make sure that's clear. >> thank you that's fine. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm fine with the one 50 unfortunately, it casts a smaller net and doesn't capture

more but i've made suggestions on ones below our level not part of this motion that is for the supervisors to consider. >> okay commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded with i believe one amendment that was included just for clarity sake we're amending legislation that was just recently substituted on september 8, 2015, and handed up to you that's our baseline we're working off of would you prefer i called a motion in its entirety or talk about those separately. >> i recommend it in nights entirety so let's see if i

captured the motion to adapt a recommendation for approval as amended to include grandfathering projects after july 1st, 2014, to get a 25 percent fee waiver and projects submitted before 8 percent fee waiver comments we are removing the secondary institutions and adding hospitals and then on the fee that the boards consider a graduated fee rate up to 33 percent of nexus by neighborhood and that we'll be adding the planning commission to be able to request and updated fee analysis basically anytime. >> you're looking for 3 years. >> just say 3 years. >> we put the 3 years in?

>> and there's no offset planned area fee subsidies. >> i think that was and or consider no offset to the plan areas. >> okay. okay. >> that's part of the same idea. >> right. >> on the economic analysis. >> well, the 3 years was basically including the planning commission to be one of the agency that requests an update to that fee analysis. >> there's no - >> yeah, the reason i'm asking for 3. >> i was asking for 3. >> i think there were two different things to make the regular outlet of the report 3 and on the extra goody. >> it that amenable.

>> right. >> so making the economic analysis required every 3 years; right? >> but that it would be requested and considered by the planning commission including the board of supervisors and the other agency listed okay. that's. >> may i have clarify the for the 25 rate of grandfathering i wanted to clarify is that just for residential projects we had a different proposal for non-residential and residential and non-residential is 25 less than the proposed new rates. >> i think i was consider. >> new leases. >> just want to make sure. >> so grandfathering of projects the reduction of fee subsidies will be for residential only very good.

>> than on that motion. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioner, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> commissioners the next item supervisor wiener is here he's changed his schedule around i'll ask you, you want to hear this item yet. >>

break. >> good evening commissioner and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, september 10, any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. xhefg on there our regular calendar on item 10 for case notice to tenants of dwelling unit meager this is a police vehicle amount. >> diego i'll amp a planning code to the section 311 and telephone to remove an unauthorized unit before i continue i want to provide supervisor wiener's office with

a time to >> good evening advance and do pass draw for supervisor scott wiener recently it cameo our attention not every tenants files for the preempts to demolish their units the current rules treat the tenants differently in terms of not everyone gets the same level of notice without notifying an existing tenant if not on the official book it gives the tenants little. to avail themselves of the rights the planning code to the existing tenants for action including the demolition it turns out a loophole in those requirements when it comes down to unit not on the books those units and people don't receive notice in some cases including one that was recently considered

we the board of appeals the existing tenants have no notice their unit is being removed without notice those tenants are basically very little recourse do push back this is unfair in a move a few months ago the board of appeals passed a resolution unanimously urging the board of supervisors and this does that so i'll let diego talk about it but in a nut shell this requires the notice of all tenants whether or not the units is on the books of any action that will effectively remove the units whether a standard demolition what oftentimes happens it doesn't come to the planning department permits 0

through beginning the effective demolition by removing one is to have and next day the stove and that's a way to avoid scrutiny so this legislation considers by the building inspection back in i think in june and it was by that commission and i'll ask you support it today thank you. >> commissioners the planning department broadly supports in ordinances that is to show you. >> tenants in a building receive adequate notice irrespective whether they resides in a unit that is urban tolerated it results in a minor procedural change to the procedures the department believes that those changes will be integrated into the exit procedures however, the department believes that some of the proposed amendments require the

modification for the improved administration the first is outlined in our case report we'll add language to 36 and 312 the second set helps bring did mechanisms in line with the existing line procedures that are underway by the planning department in particular the staff recommendations surrounding increasing the post notice to align what the current cu and the poster of notice say we recommend aefl the post notice to align with the 311 and 312 consulting content but with the relevant added language proposed by supervisor wiener's office we ask the aligned notice this happens what all others entitlements and late we recommend did planning department have the notice not

the zoning administrator's office this is similar to section 311 and 312 notification policies that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thanks. >> thank you. >> open up for public comment is there any any public comment on this item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. scans can you please fill me in who is responsible for posting. >> under section 311 the planning department causes this to occur it is a team effort between the project sponsor posted notice that they receive from the planning department and the planning department also males out the nos notices we mailed mailed it out from the address from the project sponsor under section 311 and 312 it is a bit of both parties. >> i'm glad our mentioning 3

languages spanish and chinese and russian the city is full of city of the other languages i think we might leaf some out there is a vast of spoken arabic sounding languages and i want to make sure those people understand what is it is all about the building owner has people of other language background their equally informed otherwise they're creating on urban comfortable sidewalks. >> commissioner antonini. >> this is good legislation and complaisance that involves noticing and it may help us disorder sdooerd whether the units exist or not i know this

is including not legal units but we spend a lot of time in discussions over whether a unit is there or not there and anything that makes it clear claim whether there is a unit or even a tenant because it might tend to establish a record for our purposes that somebody lived there even though it was not a legal unit but i think that is good to have as much of information as possible. >> commissioner richards. >> yes. a couple of things first that hits home i had a friend in a unit not legal they didn't know they were getting evacuating i appreciate the supervisors leadership and hope that staff could figure out if under recent any other loopholes out there based on the things we're seen and harder advertise

it is a fantastic idea on the posting mr. sanchez a legal unit unit you're trying to get a demolished is there a verification that sign is posted. >> we ask for arrest affidavit that says the project manager posted the notice for the full thirty days their signing an affidavit they did. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to make a comment the legislation is sensitive there have refimentd of the department adds a lot of clarity so thank you to the does want for the extra mile i move to approve with modifications. >> second. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there's a motion that's seconded with the

modifications commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes in an amount 6 to zero. >> commissioners, that places you under your on item 11 lansing street an in kind agreement. >> good evening kim with the planning department staff the item before you is the portion for the rincon hill impact fees for lansing street in exchange for an in kind arraignment for the sponsor to provide streetscape improvements their drawn from 89 roanoke city straight plan for portion of a block on harrison street the fee waiver for 6 hundred and 66 tell you plus of the entire impact fees that is 8.8 million the in

kind projects in adapted area plans are required to pay the impact fees for project enter into an 69 agreement with the city and provided in exchange of that provide straight consortiums or infrastructure improvements so for all portions of their fee the rincon hill area plan is unique it includes streetscape plan for improvements so for every block of the 10 blocks within the area plan boundary the streetscape was a drafted and adopted recently at that commission the proposed in kind agreement will implement the proposals of the rincon hill streetscape plan for the stock on harrison street within f x and to the rest of the 45 lansing privately the improvements are the sidewalks on the northern part of the

harrison a bulb out on essex and landscaping and sidewalk furniture the promoted improvement 59 harrison and essex street the i 80 probation officers pedestrian challenges it creates an opportunity to capitalize on the existing construction with the prelims of the public improvements proposed before i this rincon hill straight sprap the streetscape will not occur until 2015 when the that motion carries has scheduled conduct on harrison in the rincon hill boundary staff recommends the fee waiver be approved it will provide necessary improvements

with the factor timeframe the project sponsor is here for any questions. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> so no project sponsor presentation on this just the availability for questions okay. thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you just two quick questions the first one is the sort of philosophy the streetscape that are proposed by the developer 19 are the same that the fee would have been. >> there are portions number two, their fee subsidies $3.8 million and streetscape improvements will cost of hundred and $68,000 plus so portion the fee are going to be satisfied with the improvements and the rest will be paid.

>> so real kick is the 6 hundred and 68 are the final staff report says that's one of two estimates and a final number. >> the project sponsor has two estimates and the city goes with the lower one. >> great and just confirming homework association takes on the maintenance. >> the maintenance improvements had will be by the adjacent property owners with front the streetscape improvements and the project sponsor is informed the neighbors and they've agreed. >> but not the neighbors the homeownership association. >> i'm not sure it's itself

homeowner. >> just clarifying thank you. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> could you refresh my memory we had others feedback it accelerated the realization of partial streetscape and open space improvements in the lansing streets area i recall that from is another project i assume that is a combination. >> in the roifb one more in kind agreement for the tower and the improvements were on first strait and harrison street portions - >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i'm in favor of the project that make sense i have a question from the staff report i don't need an answer now but maybe later in the staff report there are 12 hundred additional

units entitled names all the ones on rincon hill that have been built or under construction i'm trying to figure out where the other 12 hundred units i walk up there many nights and don't know where the others are. >> i'll get you a list. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to approve. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson common core commissioner richards commissioner wu sdmoechlt so moved, commissioners, that motion passes you unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places you on item 1312 is continued until october 22nd so case item 13 on

faculty street a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon caring by planning department staff the end for a conditional use authorization to establish a 6 hundred thirty formula retail use doing business as as wells fargo stoift 55 thousand plus retail establishments doing business as as lucky supreme court or supermarket if so in the shopping district in the western edition neighborhood and wells fargo is a banking company with 62 locations in the u.s. and 40 branches in san francisco therefore formula retail uses within the 3 hundred foot of the radius block of 25 percent of the 16 commercial storefront and 40 percent the overall commercial frontage the promoted use will not onlyly increase the

concentration to 29 percent with no change on the project one the storefronts is a formula retail use operating as chief bank within the subject nc s this location offers the establishment in the neighborhood with limited access to such services there is currently one available storefront within the visibility the projects occur an existing within an existing formula retail use and no exterior alternatives it is limit to a wall sign that will- 9 the cupped storefronts will be neighborhood serving totally 56 percent of those 4 formula retail use the proposed use to date, no public comment has been received by the department the

department recommends approval of the proposed use meets all the planning code it's been found to that compatible with the nc s and would normally increase the formula retail use within the district that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you project sponsor. >> good evening commissioners i'm representing wells fargo i'm jim with stan tech architecture thank you very much for considering our proposal we're working with on this in store branch an attempt to service the may be this is not an designation bank we'll expected people to come for miles for banking a one time shopping opportunities for them

they can do they're shopping at lucky and do banking at the same time what your customers like we have a tremendously loyal customer base in this neighborhood that would very much appreciate the wells fargo branch what we enjoy about the experience the fact it as secure zone in the exterior the store in the plan the two atm are immediately adjacent to the customer checkout stand this is really important to them and the other thing that is the one time shopping so what we're trying to do is better service an extremely loyal customer base by addressing it in store service if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them thank you very much for your conduct. >> open up for public comment

any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that is a good project no wells fargo in the area and you know, i think that is a great services to the public i bank at a number of different branches and banks it is nice to have them more than one in the area even if you have another bank it is nice to go from one to another if you're transferring funds or doing business with the banks that may have holding of yours it make sense to me move to approve. >> commissioner moore. >> a need for increased security i think fewer people are using on street atm man's machines and i observe it in my own neighborhood people prefer to go inside what i appreciate

within the formula retail use occupying a modest amount of space is not dense first degree any retail space within a formula retail use i think it is definitely something i'll support. >> commissioner there's been a motion and sect to approve that commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to zero commissioners that places you under our discretionary calendar this is a public initiated

discretionary review we'll have 3 separate presentations and a combined 10 minute presentation from the project sponsor and then each the dr requesters get a 2 minute rebuttal and the project sponsor will receive a 2 minute rebuttal. >> before staff presentation commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i'm a dentist and one of the dr requesters is a patient of mine and in the last 12 months this patient has paid for dental services to my employer dentists the amount i was paid is far below the threshold the city attorney has set to recuse myself in front based on advice from the city attorney i'll able to participate.

>> planning department staff the items before you a request for discretionary review authorization for the items one for the demolition of the existing structure and the for the replacement of the new structure 3 discretionary review were filed for the demolition of the existing structure all by different members of the public the project is on the west side of the street north of the intersection and glen park neighborhood the project falls with the rh1 zion the project to demolish to dwelling units one bathroom and one car garage and construct a new 35 feet 3 story dwelling unit with four and a half bathrooms and two parking

garage it is setback and cantonese a stake up to the building on the north side providing a setback to the front the block is characteristics by a pattern of open space, however, it provides a rear yard of 25 rear yard is required to preserve the open space at the end of the block this is a non-conforming cottage the southeast portion the prototype structure runnings along the north side a 3 feet at the southeast corner provides for the rear cottage a rooftop with solar panel on the third floor with the facade and at the rear the second floor the surrounding neighborhood is a mixture containing one and 2 dwelling units and the residential neighborhood has a family

structures such as the one immediately setting the residential design team it is complimentary with the neighborhood character after the discretionary review for the subject property it was recommended recommend a rear all of the evidence reducing the setback by 8 feet and setback on all 4 for the majority of the proposed structure along the southern property line one letter of opposition for protect this area and it was submitted that morning, i have a copy of the letter it is here aside from the requests that were filed by the neighbors although in the reports the petition from 14 properties is included as an

attachment tot to proclamation the department recommended the depth not productive the dr the project is consistent with the policies of the general comprised with the destine code and no - financially assessable by the prepared of a certified prayer no tenants will be displaced and given the skafl the project no impact of the local street system or muni and although the structure is 50 years old the evaluation is a determination that the existing building is not a landmark that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> first dr requester. >> i'd like to clarify that the 5 minutes is to include the dr requesters and their team if

you've acquired people to help you out that's the time you have to speak. >> i believe it is hearing ton. >> the first application was by under mr. shawn we'll go in the order of - >> i don't think that matters. >> we need to try this overhead before we start. >> if you place it face up it will start. >> kind of blurry.

>> syria your time is open. >> okay commissioners good evening thanks for waiting for us i'm ed, i live in an 18 hundred square feet house on the corner since 88 i'm the dr requester filer on the demolition under 317 as you may know there's a mandatory dr requirement to demolish a single-family home and 16 criteria applicable to demolition including the affordability you'll hear a lot of demolition if affordability going down it implicit meet the

criteria the speaker will go into the data so how do you avoid a mandatory dr here this is hopefully it is in focus the number is the planning department published it is important this property as one and a half million dollars as march 5, 2014 there it is in the exhibits it is dated march 5, 2014 a speaker later will go into the value of the vertical values so one submits an profiler that exceeds the thresholds the spokesperson which is an electric protect get an profiler for to property for $1. million plus the appraisal

saying the cottages is worth $2,000 per square feet this is a 9 hundred square feet cottage if you don't count the basement 2 thousand square feet is a new record for the submittal we looked at the appraisal condominium or submitted by the, llc you take the model as a compass wisp putting forwards the, llc and it is in the credible we have support from the listing price for the lot was $1.1 million the appraisal says the lot is worth 50 percent over this so the neighborhood hires the decorator with the appraisal and the value of the property at $1.2 million i'm giving copies here for everybody all those

appraisals we hope change this appraisal value is way below the threshold we contend it is not credible here's the appraisal by john's therefore the appraisal can't be used to excuse in application from the criteria applicable to a dr we have over thirty households supporting our demolition thirty households photo we would welcome the remodel of this cottage like the oldest homes on the block those homes on this block are old and remodeled as you can see from

this photo this property is liveable today since this is rent out there's renter in there. >> next picture. >> this is a photo of the property on the right on old cottage two search and seizure look at the photo on the left 775 noah street a house like this one we don't want demolition of this property we welcome a remodel we recommend you take dr thank you. >> thank you second dr requester good evening commissioners thank you for your time i know it's been a long day i've been sitting here a long time microfilm i'm one the dr filers

i'm shawn lived here 29 years my family has lived in the bruno heights neighborhood for a hundred 11 years, yes that's right hundred and 11 years to say i care of and am invested in my neighborhoods a gross understatement here in this first graphic that is being down this is a graphic listings the square footage of the neighborhood homes it focuses on the subject block this block is unusual and unique the square footage is not a criteria it is correlating controlled in san francisco western neighborhoods allow this is in bruno heights i see this misses the points awhile square footage is controlled in most neighborhood it is a big part of how neighborhood character is

defined the average eyes size of. >> home in the 15 to 2 thousand square feet is it so not over 25 hundred square feet even the blocks anomalyly you'll hear is a non-conform house on the corner only 2 thousand and 60 square feet for all 3 units this tells us whether we have a number of properties with 4 thousand square feet in lot area all of the lots going down d it the street are 4 thousand square feet in the lots you saw one thing it tells you that open areas think on this block they're one the beginning characteristics of this block many homes have open space and those front yard and side yards

especially the side yards visually connect the street to the barrier block this is an outline you've about to see of the existing home on morrey in green and the proposed construction in blue in essence the new structure takes away those aspects the lot that takes away from the block as a whole what is gains by the loss of character to the neighborhood the answer simply massive exterior square footage for the property sales price for, llc owners fourth the size of existing homes tells you that homes should step down that allows outline homes to share light and air and open space. >> the size the prototype building tells you that the value of exterior square footage

for, llc owners trumps the gentle slopes the open side yards and rights the privacy and loyalty to neighborhood many graphic outlines in blue an expected height and width one of the building transition between 3 units non-common and the smaller to the north it is important to note the apartment building on the right a true anomaly is a current building one expects to be larger in massive and depth and width this should not be the case the new buildings should transition to the new dimensions this small home is representative the other homes last i want to leave i with a last graphic the building is red the green to the left is my house the green to the right

is one of the other dr requesters homes it the sponsor you can see the massive difference in scale some the projects come before i can have a intentionally and change the material that can make a project work this is not one of them this proposal is to masking out of scale and character and so inappropriate the design can't be hydroincrease over the existing building and 3 hundred percent increase over the average size a blunt disrespects the privacy and tingling is not acceptable we ask i approve or disapprove the application for the demolition and the new construction and help us to work request the. >> thank you. sir, your time is

up thank you. >> is there a dr requester. >> i assume, sir. >> david i own and reside at the two residents on 75 harding park street along with the daughter and that purchased this property in 1983 my family weathered those ever since the proposed design at 178 percent 3 is extremely large and out of reconcile with the neighborhood it extends the tall bulk the apartment another 40 feet to the north and carries the bulk east side towards the residents on harper street and along the ned of my cottage dwarfing it.

>> the proposed design imposed an - an inappropriate character for the neighborhood we support the comments with the community explained with the who other applications for the discretionary review our request for discretionary review relates to the physical impact of the promoted 1783 residence will have on our cottage on harper street in my opinion not reasonable the design of the proposed new residence has direct physical gak impact on our comp and imposed the san francisco violation this cottage was constructed in 1908 after the 1906 san francisco earthquake

and the cottage was built a few inches - show this one first maybe go to this one. >> the south wall the proposed residence is a few inches north the common property line and a few inches away from the cottage 16 feet of total light this wall will cover half the living room window and the desirability of the stair to the basement and a small window to the basement level ross are the architect it impacts the wall of the cottage access to a portion of the left wall for the function it is your

remains in several parts of the wall. >> it requires natural ventilation and light for the occupied retains they own since 1873 to the natural light to the living room it is required by the building code and eliminates the ventilation from the stair to the basement and half the natural light to the basement into the windows on the north wall along the common property line with the 1783 noah street it is because the cottage was constructed in 1908 the windows are allowed to remain but the approximate of noah street both 0 the foundation

through the 74 harper's cottage wall north wall function violates the florescence the ground loading on soils that support in function the present condition is the ventilation that is a disruption on the north side and most likely lead to failure of the wall foundation and the structure will be consumed and the occupancy of the cottage may not be possible this will be catastrophic for the family ask for discretionary review and ask important modification that will reduce not eliminate the risk of potential foundation in here they cottage remain the exist natural light and ventilation to the cottage and thus impose the building code violation and

remain natural light and remain light that allows adequate space to the north wall and the building inspection asked us for the south wall proposed noah street thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. now we're open for members of the public who are not part the dr team anyone supporting the dr. >> once you starts speaking, sir sgovt will go to the screen and i leave hundreds of feet from the proposed house and i've

lived there for 73 years over a century i want to elaborate on the issue of affordability as you know the mandatory dr is when the house price is less than the single-family one $.3 million that picture will dramatically be out bit sunshine it should be over million dollars today it is supposed to reflect the prototype depression doesn't meet the quantify essentials a major shifts changing the nature of the western neighborhoods san francisco is undergoing a substantial shift from a city that is historical provide work

place to every sect of the population and all raze and population with the physicians and public school teachers and not-for-profit that support the arts so this is a graphic b will income disparities in this grateful you heard on 2224 overseeing street one the projects that led to the bruno heights duration the controls it demonstrates the setback for the disparity of the owns in san francisco in our city more than any others city in the country between 2007 and 2012 it allows a demolition of the perfectly go home to make room for a monster house to make the home prices rise this is a sad truth at this point all we have left in many

neighborhoods is relate affordability the relative affordability can't match accident ability is an important stated, in fact, one the criterions listed this one right here is whether the project text the affordability of existing houses this is does not do that. >> so it is quite obvious the project manager does not men. >> thank you. >> good evening thank you for hearing us today planning commission

my name is yvette i'm actually reading a letter from scott on noah street he was not able to make it today that ladies and gentlemen, of the commission my name is scott i live next to the subject property since 1981 i want to be here in person my work is such i couldn't get away my job makes that difficulty difficult to get off i know other neighbors are not there i want to talk about the attorneys and architect and, llc seemed to think this building is a good idea we'll document the designs problems and the mpgz by the sponsors and the fact the development is out of size and character with a neighborhood that existed for a better part of a hundred years i've lived here only a third of that time and seen many changes none none

so inappropriate as the investment property i support all 3 dr applications but i've got a few comments about code section 317 and the demolition not only is the demolition not necessary the property didn't come close to meet the code of 317 regarding the occasion the developers are using every trick from the level of review of the oversight of the proposed building here's graph 1.317 shows did standard this is a liz of the decree that are applied to the demolition of every single-family home that is valued for the review there are 16 standards the project did not meet the 16 including every standard that deals with this the 10 that failed are shown in

bold. >> i would like to not non-owners living in the house right now the spore may say that not rented under the law and occupancy not owner occupied is rent occupied by depiction with tenants living in the house now the sponsor must building that is habitable if so why would the, llc own want to don't worry about it we'll be using the rental how's not built by developers ♪ property it exist in scale and character the neighborhood i urge the commission deny the permit in a neighborhood that has so little >> thank you. >> next speaker

a >> hi, i'm kevin white i live with and family across the street wret from the project site my wife and i have acknowledged there since 1989 and in the family since 1982 this project will block light and our view we've enjoyed formal decades we'll see a 5 thousand square feet ammunition most of 2 thousand square feet or less believe me this house is no the the spirit or scale or character but i'm worried about the appropriate building many of us believe as you've heard the property doesn't exceed the threshold that exemption the thresholds as as you've heard requestion the accuracy at issue is how is that threshold determined

this is very important because the project sponsor proposal didn't meet the mandatory dr standards section 317 the thresholds is 80 percent the com bins the lands of the single-family units in san francisco you've heard this finger figure of 80 was last updated in march of 2014 with 2013 data so here is a chart of how that average has grown compared studio 2015 it used to be here and now it is here i think we all - well, it is off the charters literally. >> we all know that the prices have grown significantly i can the zoning administrator difficult job duo to update it to have an accurate 80 percent so the legislation stiff standard can be implemented why

can't this be updated in a manner that it actually reflects cotter values and give us the cat to make fair determinations that way projects like this will get. >> thoughtful review and not skirt mandatory dr standards the last time the figure was changed applied to projects in the pipeline i ask you to please update the threshold with current data and political it to this project thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> good afternoon. i have a graphic here. >> my name is pat i'm a long time residents of noah valley in fact, born in san francisco it is obvious there is several key

issues about the proposed building that needs to be changed whether by disapproval the current application and allowing the supplemental was and building are a substantial reduction in the promoted new building the building is far too at all and wide and too deep the dine guideline lou gehrig's disease the buildings to be larger is only for the corner if we extend it when the residential design team it will be expend to the next and than ever building on this block. >> this building needs to actress as a transition from the large and non-common building to the other homes all of which are smaller much smaller here's the video of the graphic

we propose a 4 point plan first, the top floor needs to be removed or setback from the elevation not to exceed to thirty feet that maybe accomplished by two or three excavation on the first level it needs to lower it's height so it stenos down with the street and called for in the residential guidelines typography is one the design foundations of the city of hillside second open side yards must be remained perhaps 10 feet of width on this south side with the exit south yard and 16 feet wide are a minimum of 5 foot setback along the south side property line

that abuts the property line but not as tall or deep as the proposed building we believe there should be an open side the yard at 5 feet behind the proposed side entry and a further setback for upper floors. >> as proposed elder those are part p of what is so special as you walk up the street it feels like a garden with trees and large planting in front of the building and third there needs an a reduction in the decks he in the size and place to minimize privacy impacts off the north side and west property line and lastly reduce the rear by 5 feet. >> thank you. sir, your time is up. >> any additional members of the public in support of the dr

if other speakers please line p up. >> is there a camera. >> once you start speaking sfgov will go to the tape. >> i've lived in the neighborhood for 40 years oh, there it is the graphic first, i'd like to present a petition signed by 29 neighbors the graphic there okay the graphic depict with the design and scale with the neighborhood and a number of people that live here, too this is important to immediate neighbors we've been effected

bit the mass and character the proposed structure it is important to families they know this is a problem effect every western edition especially noah valley our neighborhood particularly on the top of the street a moderate sized home my neighbors and i don't propose change but change that is positive not harming the landscape into the typography we're a take a look neighborhood we watch aechlz kids and pets and gather formal street planning and retirement parties for our bob the mailman of thirty years we come together for the fourth of july on the street we care about each other how is the builder of this 5 to $7 million house with plans that

show disregard for the liveability for his neighbors going to fit if we fear this sets a precedence persistence for dog of other homes and mcmonk battle was figure out i participated in a discretionary review in that case get out of character house was reflect by the planning commission please help us keep our neighborhood the dynamic treasure it is thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is francis i live on layingly street hundred and 50 feet from the proposed project we're

discussing today at 1783 human resources i'm a 40 year residents of the neighborhood the last 31 years at 59 laying will i street i lived in the excelsior where i built my first home in any 20s and before that in the mission district of san francisco microscopically were having 3 about his born and raised and went to san francisco public schools and two are teachers i would like to support strongly support the dr for the neighborhood that is being presented to you and i think you all are aware the issues that i'm not going into the particulars of the dr they've

been addressed all to talk about the issues that you are i'm sure you're aware that face san francisco families and i'm sure you have a commitment to making san francisco as liveable and affordable as possible for the next generation of san franciscans with that said, i wonder about the commitment of the applicant to develop those a house that a long time residents of the neighborhood have often referred to as a brat house the developers need to demolish the highway as part of the history of the fabricated and build a 3 story meg mansion of the home that which finished hold the triple the square footage the home size on the 17 hundred block of noah street it will go for to destroy the

character the neighborhood that has been written up in the chronicle and the online version the new york times refer to it as an earthquake shacks and modern homes and might have had cottages and by a 19 century mansions owned by the san francisco's madam's barbary coast era i'd like to point out i support i'm not against redo so or refurbishment this is the first time i've spoken before you as regards to the project but i would like to note if if this project is built it will be out of scale and character and completely out of sync with the neighborhood that we current live in. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> is there any additional public commenters? >> good evening. i'm georgia i live on duncan street i know shawn my boys played sports with his nephews and i know the other folks my sons played with their boys i'm here because i i did not read the planning commission on friday i forgot about that i read socket fight and say a monster home in upper noah valley and golden gate park it is one neighborhood there is a really p nc the letter was written to you i hope you got did there are 2 hundred people i've been to meetings they're out there it is interesting the house they want

to demolish is 4 bedrooms and this house is 4 bedrooms on stoirldz and i think that the whole issue of the affordability number is existing the numbers are due to go up and that is something to be looked at the comparisons for the appraisal it is interesting one of them i showed you that is the 1 on chavez street that is now got the big facade and the other than on the street they're remodeling it and going within the footprint i have a another couple of questions about the slope i stood for years on noah valley and 30th when we boys were at bus stop it seems like if should be greater than 20 percent slope i question that my biggest question is about zoning

bulletin ms. knight made a big deal about a 40 foot lot in rh1 if i'm not mistaken and this is a question he have for all ever you i don't see anyone anyone here it goes to mr. sanchez it says the lots for the width of 40 feet or more but two side yards each of 40 feet that a critical factor people like their side yards they make this property the side yards are a marketable thing so i hope that i support all those 3 dr people and i hope you'll take the advice this should go back to the staff and the neighbors and the project sponsor and staff should work to come up with

something much, much more fitting for this area thank you. >> thank you. >> okay project sponsor your team has 10 minutes. >> good evening not morning good evening, commissioners marking are reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor and i'm actually glad that we have an opportunity to walk us through the project there may be some marketplaces of the scowling scope of the project before i get into walking through what we've done after the 311 was filed to address the concerns of neighborhood capability i want to briefly talk about the demolition issue until today, we

had seen nothing or heard anything that there was an appraisal that had been filled the appraisal that is at issue that was attached to our response brief was filed done in 2014 and the building permit was you filed a month later when you looking at the graph look at if you're to take that as an accurate representation of the affordability threshold you should look at it the way the code works what was the affordability threshold at the time the demolition permit was filed and we haven't had a chance to look at this new appraisal it has to be done by a qualified appraisal i'm not sure they did

it the dr briefs the had the prints out and in fact, the print for that the home now is above the 80 percent affordability threshold so, now i want to walk you through briefly introduce the design development of the property and talk about the changes that have been made since the dr requests were filed this is important because it looked like from the graphics that some of the dr requesters provided it looked like they're still looking at a building that is longer than what was current prototype there are 5 major design changes there is now a 3 feet setback on all floors that extends to the majority of the southern property line so that's

the property line shared by mr. ray disposal it owns the cottage and mr. harrington uphill there's been on the second floor in the southeast corner the rear facade it is also facing the dr requesters there's been a notch mass reduction that was implemented to allow loyalty to combo into mr. ray disposals rear cottage and also into the backyard of mr. harrington the third change there was a stair that was outside on the southern upper part of the property leading to the rooftop that stairwell has been moved and no penthouse and a sliding door to get into the roof deck

and the idea behind that to further reduce the amount of building mass that is near the southern uphill property line in terms of the front setback i've heard a few members of the public talk about the dine design on the front there is a 5 foot setback on the northwest facade story and the third floor has been setback as well by an additional 5 feet i wanted to run introduce 40 graphics that are included in the dr packet this is a view looking north as you can see there's a 3 foot setback starting right here this is mr. harassing tons property and this is the other gentleman the stairwell has been removed

with a significant notch feature in the south west corner this is another view of the same changes that have been made as you can see more clearly the extent of the notch on the second floor and on the 3 foot setback and the stairwell has been moved to the inside right in case it wasn't clear the yellow has been removed and so, now we're going looking at the front of the building as you can see right here the first setback is on the second floor which is designed do benefit the property that is down sloping and seconds on the third floor the setback on the entitle of the building i want to move briefly to talking about this

idea of scale and compatibility i think there been many mpg you heard this building thousand square feet or 5 thousand 5 hundred square feet is less than 45 hundred square feet this lot is an ab normally wide lot for this area most lots of as you may know in san francisco are 25 this is 45 and if this, were on a 25 foot lot based on the ratio it is 28 square feet which is compatible to the homes uphill the property i'd like to point out that the building lot coverage is only 50 percent that the compatible to 2

of the 3 dr requesters on the top floor a reverse floor plan the third floor has the businessmen's and the third floor on occupies 32 percent of the total size of the protein lot the project is completely code compliant we're not asking for variances that includes the front and rear setback doubt is the rear is larger than required and the project also compiles with the relevance design guidelines i want to walk through those quickly i think that there was a maybe many misinformation about what the design guidelines call for it is important to walk through those points first one is the most important if i could get the

overhead is rear yard cottage it is applicable to some of the comments that mr. ray psychological said as you can see in the image here the residential design guidelines recognize a rear cottage the design the building to respect that rear cottage it asks for a side setback that is sdaem exactly what we're providing and also providing an additional notch on the second floor that allows the light and air into this area and moved the deck the

outside light can wish - those impacts are minimizing upper floor setbacks and shared lightwell and roof all of which are incorporated into the new project design just briefly looking at the front of the building and how it is compatible with the design guidelines forefront setback they transition from the height of the adjacent buildings which we do here the i'm sorry not the height the setback of the adjacent buildings the building to the south uphill has inform set back setback and the north has 38 setback it is 15 feet building scale which is what i was talking about the taller buildings can be designed to

address building depth which we do here there are features and articulates that are incorporated into the design that are meant to transition between 9 larger buildings to the south and the smaller building to the north thank you for your time. >> thank you. any members of the public in support of project sponsor? >> okay. we'll move on to rebuttals each dr requester has

a two minute rebuttal. >> the gentleman what too busy to meet with us and made the statement to me many times guaranteeing the high-priced legal representation and instead of speaking on thaip their own behalf it speaks volumes how they'll try to fit into the neighborhood it amounts moumsz to theirs shaking their money fists like an economic bully they come from a world where money is mitigate is mitigate this is character it didn't matter they've bought the property this is how people go about those organize as a corporation to skirt the issues and have silent partners why is it person going to build a silent house a partner that is a

great question you know, i could go on and on about the issues i've had with that communication moving forward through mr. jeff gibson one of the things that speaks volumes he's forfeited the graphics and basically in the preapplication meeting had the schematics this is what we're going to do what do you think about that are how do you feel this is what we're going to do this guess what is characterized the action. >> next dr requester. >> just again noah commissioners a couple of responses the department building to the right of the project is 3 units but it is 22

hundred square feet for all 3 units so i think i should point out the attorney is talking about three or four thousand square feet houses are built up against the hill they don't block people lands if you look at the renderings this house is humongous and that's what i look at just the render to tell you the story you took the top floor off the duncan street august of last year you took the whole top floor off i watched the video so i want to remind you of duncan august 2014 there was a monster house proposed similar to this you took the top floor off i was

impressed as you can see today they have no support for anybody i talked to and - >> thank you dr requester. >> i'm not sure exactly what they're proposing but it the discretionary review submittal i'm made modifications to the lines and this risks the foundation failure and eliminate the code violation for light actual light into my living room this is what i propose for the first floor if you look at the

area bottom the building a grade a 3 foot setback and a notch on the office the floor above that 3 foot setback and a notch out of master bedroom terrace and at the top floor another 3 foot setback and it indicates that there will extend all the way across a 3 foot setback in a terrace below. >> those are the only changes i indicated that will make the impacts on 74a harper street

reduce the reduction reduce the eliminate the code violation for light and ventilation to the living room and minimize the risk for foundation failure thank you. >> thank you. >> with that, the public sorry two imaginations for project sponsor. >> thanks just quickly the issues this is what you say tonight and if we can so the one of the concrete suggestions in the dr request so this is the second floor you saw that as well the 3 feet setback lightwell we are providing and providing a setback right here cutting a

chunk out of may or may not bedroom to the extent we received any actual suggestions from the dr request we did our best to accommodate those within the perimeters i am want to run introduce a few things in terms of the setback under the memorandum i believe that what that is talking about for a different zoning district for rh1 d if so in the zoning district we're in rh1471 duncan had a party room we have a kitchen and it is the living space like comparing apples and oranges and i also think that you can see from the project we've done a lot to address light and air what i think you may be hearing

when you hear privacy and when someone across the street is pub u talking about loiltd someone maybe losing their view this project is designed to provide alignment to the properties that are effected by a new houses and the property is designed to e multiply others verify. >> with that, the public hearing portions is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> so can i ask a procedural question two building permits or one permit. >> staff please. there are two briment a demolition permit and i want to talk about the building permit first i'll be honest with you, we have a 2015 appraisal by the dr requester against 2014 standard that is worse you know you, you are have an

inflated market under the numbers on the demolition department my thought your permit appraisal for 2014 we sat here last week and did a water permit for howard street luxury condos $2,000 per foot your appraisal is $2,000 per square feet i can't support demolishing this house it didn't reach the criteria and when i tell you when see this i'll see the board of supervisors and try to change 317 i'm going to make a motion to deny the demolition permit. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i disagree i looked at both the appraisals the appraisal that was done last

year was done by a certified public appraisal by the first republic bank banks are conservative that is supplying what their lend their money based on the appraisal i had one done on my house it was conservative memo son bought a house done the street and i know the value on my place was much more conservative it is one .704 and everything acknowledges the prices have religion even though the lower barrier it is far above the barrier and that's staffs position and my guess, of course, i'm voting against the measure to not allow the demolition it is a wide lot 40

feet widest you're paying for the size of the lot you can build a house of this size with notifications i'll agree to but make an inappropriate house and big enough with 4 bedrooms on the upper floor it make sense a master and bedrooms for the three children and you've got the appropriated bathrooms and things and that's on the middle floor and then you've got the living room and dining room and the other spaces on the upper floor and down below a garage the square footage is sometimes a little bit overstayed i agree with 45 hundred it maybe less than that in accident old days with you talked about square footage you don't count bathrooms or hallways and did that and garages so people who are representing the square footage on the orderly homes i'm used to the lower figures that

is the case being wrought up on this one this is in terms of the demolition situation when i will go with the prevail that is submitted and acceptedcy first republic bank secondly, they've done the stairs they're gone and the southeast corner is gone, they've now cargo to what i've been told 16 plus square feet from the wall i don't any - they have a 3 foot separation from mr. harassing tons house i'm invited my house is 3 feet from the property line and the next it is 3 feet from the property line and a detached neighborhood the setbacks are 3 feet from the line on each house that is more

than accurate, however, i'll propose a couple of things to help to needs needed the concerns the neighborhood i know there is plenty of room to drop two or three feet as used excavates the present feet is 36 feet 10 inches in height what give me the height sir, if you could are sorry 34. >> 34 now okay. so if we knockoff two or three two to three feet come down to 31 or 31 to the place where some of the doctor have asked for not they necessarily need it the loiltd with the changes you've made and the views and the separation from the proposals o property that adequate that there make the house appear to follow the slope completely even more so i did came back easily done the

other things if you'll look at our plans plan a .21 and a .22 and a .3 those are the 3 floors you've got to bottom that an office space that be will be incorporated for the recreation room or made a little bit smaller i suggest taking two feet off the south aspect of that and 2 feet off the i guess the east aspect where the smaller pop outs still remains according what will happen you have a terrace you'll have a terrace that is a little bit smaller it will have 2 feet on the lessen the south and east it will be a nice sized terrace and

on the top floor the setback a complete there but have to 2 feet on the area that comes off the living room minor changes that creates more operation for the neighborhood on that area they should be absolutely in questions with those things being done i'm neutrality on the deck on the top having a trapdoor you've done it the rights way hover from the commissioners see fit to eliminate the upper deck it has quite a few of the terraces on the different leveled that serve the same purpose as the top deck it is okay with me to get rid of that those are the main suggestions i have to make a good project even better and you know i'm not one of those people that says just because my his or

her how is it small you have to it is appropriate for the lot and has to have minimum impacts on the neighbors which it will when we make the changes and if it happens to be more square footage then you know there aren't a lot of sites in eastern san francisco to build a complete will family home so if there are is one in noah valley then it should be built to the extent it can support the house being proposed so i'm in favor of the project and opposed- in favor the demolition and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> the problem with this particular building is not necessarily it is oversized size but it's under drawn sameness is completely unspectacular

building and it bothers me it and had show you they neighborness it is our separation this building remind me very much the state street wood discussion were there was a building after which the neighbors came out and asked the supervisor to have interim controls which helped with buildings at a minimum would show a sense of neighborlyness that's what i obtain to it is personally hard for a attorney to speak about an automatic i haven't seen them illustrated our making bullet points i said that to you won before that's the level of discussion you bring into the chamber

that has drawings that have befores and after oh, yeah, we took the notches out by i'll approve something i see in sects and a 3 dimensional to the changes you've discussed and what i hear today, i i did not see any reasonable ambulance that is represented by the architect you're aware of or represented to me the drawings changes were made in under or on the tenth of february we're in september are those the changes in the drawings which i've never seen you don't have to answer that i'm telling you my frustration i'll proposed or prepared to see a building and it didn't meet the musters you

can do a building that is more than scale and bulk and fits and patterns it's itself within an envelope that is more jermaine to the situation this could be designed anywhere i can't support it as it is i support the development and change but you'll probably have to go braurdz and come up with something better i have a hard times we're struggling to descend, if any, the city than that's not only done by making a super large building without adding a small in-law unit or studio apartment somewhere in the building and the last question i recycle to get clarity about the situation if you're renters will project representative please address that. >> there are no renters only

guests staying in the home. >> airbnb. >> they're not airbnb people are saying they're not making any money to the owners. >> how long have they been. >> i don't know that. >> you don't. >> how long have the neighbors observed the people being in there particular. >> come to the microphone and give us an answer. >> at least a couple of months there's probably been six or eight people they're receiving garbage service at the house and having parties their occupying the intersection at the top of noah at last hours doing i don't know some kind of rut july dancers there are plenty of people.

>> thank you. >> i don't want to comment but that remind me of an application nobody lives there and somebody was living there. >> okay commissioner hillis. >> so i agree with look what commissioner moore said not tweak around the edges to make it work it is more responding to kind of taking advantage the view to the size and scale felt, you know, vanity homes in the neighborhood in you know, i think that it would be a bigger home here than what's here clearly it is a big lot can take additional size and massing there are homes up the street and people have extend into the back but i don't think this what we're seeing got to go broward

backward and forward i'm not clear about the responded we run into in a bit when more developer sponsored project someone lives there with the neighbors in the future there is more discussion in that generally when you have that i courage that here we've seen it when it is a developer doing it but there's not much indication that is happening here on the issue i agree our rules are odd on the rules of demolition it is a lot with a single-family home on top of noah street it exceeds the threshold level of if didn't we're talking about a dr by

demolition or you know a major expansion in the south that leads to more expansion in the back than the neighbors want or the expansion in the front you get here you have a big lot and more you can do with ma'am, missing on all sides so i'll support sending this back and get more decision with the neighbors and project sponsor but i don't think this one is there. >> i agree with our sentiment i want to requirement of us of the elizabeth length of hearings i wanted to indication the continuance means putting it on another calendar. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. thanks. >> i was going to ask a couple of questions i can't support that i don't feel the renderings

of the plan in our documents don't reflect the plan the rerpdz that were done take down e at the end there are supervisor scott weiner so many changes to be made commissioner hillis talked about others i can't begin to say we'll spend time redesign the project to the question maybe to the commission secretary or staff i 1st district what happens with the continuance are questioning we not allowed to do that or pick a date. >> you can continue this matter indefinitely the only difference when you continue it inindefinite it has to be readvertised so when you put the date certain basically the advisements stay in place and track when the item is before you as part of the agenda you

pick a time certain and their for the ready continue it again. >> the second question maybe to you or staff if we were to deny either permit today would the project sponsor cowboy come back with a substantial different project. >> if you deny it i don't know how it could be difficult win a years time. >> can we reverse the demo. >> excuse me. >> allow the demo in the next hearing they cannot demo it. >> we generally don't approve demolition permits. >> we can withdraw that and continue it. >> it will sfurp seedy withdraw my motion. >> okay. back to the issue the continuance i want to make a motion for continuance the reason i think this needs to go

back to the draurd and 8 we don't got out favorite than eight or ten weeks look at this lot we need to have conversations with the neighborhoods i don't want to hear there was a meeting nobody got to go to it i want alp opportunity not forever but alp opportunity for that discussion so i guess if is there sort of we put it out three to four months is that, too along for the noticing. >> it is relevant to the noticing i think the interested party are here and present but 2 months is something that is adequate that's entirely up to you, you the architect that is not here would have to also weigh in terms of the workload and everything else the building

is back to square one and somewhat modify the approach. >> when you came up before the timing commissioner moore the reason why i was speaking without asking architect fairs because because two months is pushed into november i'm more thinking about the dialogue so 2 most is probably not enough time for the architect but i don't want to hear i was in brazil for two weeks at thanksgiving and i don't know what's going on. >> go ahead sorry. >> two months is more than enough time as long as the neighborhoods are willing to meet in good faith without long details that put us here for months as long as i know they're on board with spending time with

me we'll work quickly. >> thank you commissioner richards. >> i support a continuance i was playing with the demolition to try to incorporate the house a half hour with the section 317 we may be hear months from now and supposed to say and all of a sudden it whole thing is down again, i know but part of the section 317 for all the things huffing we will have a list of people we assign and sell to the project sponsor you have to choose one introduce the appraisalers parts of that a list of approved profilerers i'm frustrated we have a 2014

and 2015 profiler. >> commissioner antonini. >> i've a few questions for project sponsor if you could come up and answer the questions please i think during our meager it was told this was a family perhaps mr. murray relays family that is mr. murray relay very good i heard they're planning on occupying it they have to children possible a third on the way and they have some aging parents that will be occupying the lower floor; is that correct or not. >> one child possible a second on the way and, yes aging parents and the intention to occupy the house. >> thank you that answers a lot of questions that have been brought up and a reason to have the elevators i was going to bring up okay. thank you there are a couple of other things i'm interested in continuing this i am interested in finding a date

in november or early december noted loaded with a lot of stuff not having a long hearing like last week and let me ask one the dr requesters is that late november and a or early december to work in good faith is that long enough. >> commissioner in the quiz. >> why donna you don't want to talk with him and based on the conversation and calendar that we have available that he need that time i will be traveling i have matched in the uk. >> that is amenable what do we have in december. >> your dates is december 3,

'10 and 13. >> december 10th i'll make a motion to continue until december 10th. >> commissioner moore. >> through i'm sorry. i'm done. >> in this case throwback to continue this to december 10th. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners, that places you under your under general public comment i have no more speaker cards is there any general public comment general public comment is closed. meeting adjourned

parks and places of

communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. we had a very very unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily used parks and squares. >> parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity. bringing those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what san francisco is and wants to be. >> it's all about breaking apart the divide. the people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. this is really breaking down the digital divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedom. >> particularly by investing in connectivity in park spaces we are also

ensuring the connection to digital inclusion opportunities and parks are designed for all neighborhoods. >> people are on the move. they are no longer chained to their desk tops at home. people can accomplish a lot and we prefer them being here an enjoying the outdoors and nature. given all the mobile community and mobile information that's available. we thought it was important to make it for our parks acceptable for everyone and give everyone the opportunity to live and to work and be at the parks at the same time. >> our full mission in life is to give them access to the internet, give them access to information. in san francisco you don't have to be bottled up in an office. you can be around and enjoy your work anywhere. it's great for the

local community here and it means a lot to me. >> in the park, you are people that can teach you about the trees in the park and you can go to parks and recreation .org and having wifi in our parks makes it more accessible. if you want more information about how to enjoy wifi in san francisco parks, go t issue. >> homeless in san francisco is a challenging issue that effects owner in the city in many different was as of the 2014

homeless census over 64 homeless in individual in the city to try to address the issue we've got a program for chronic homeless welcome to the navigation center. >> this pilot project is for people living on the street what makes it different the navigation center is able to accommodate homeless encampments lowell u allowing people to keep their pets and bring their personal bloonlz. >> the full realization that people don't want to be homeless not refuse services but from the services don't meet them and not relevant they're not going to be successful if you look at the

budget losses we've got a community sacrifice important people to get food and laundry we're standing next to the bathrooms it is designed to be a dynamic and brief residential experience where right of on this site city staff to connect you to homeless places to return to family dine is up for medi-cal and all those things that are complicated for people. >> the other exciting thing city agencies come on site and provided the services for folks this is existed to see when the goal of streamlining a a whole processes of getting people on go gentle assistance into housing as much as possible. >> way totally different you can come and agree as please and get laundry services and showers

any time of the day and night it's twenty-four hours a day whatever and twhefr it's not like any other she recalls. >> they come and help people for what it is they're required the issues they need and reach out and do what we can to say okay how can we accommodate you to get you set up and straight never in my mind imagined a program like this this place it different and a a lot a lot that better it works. >> the navigation is center is a collaboration of partnerships too city departments one is the homeless outreach team managed by the san francisco distributing i look forward to the navigation center we'll have our agents go out and help and say don't go anymore over and over send our

dayshift out they've meet the population and hang out and hang in the encampment and transport people and be with them and make immediate impacts with me and my staff. >> bringing our wloongz whatever you go presents a problem this place their help with the storage i don't have to worry about it staying here you know you're getting things done they need to get things down done to get off the street avenue of the hope alsoness is gone. >> they help you if you're hungry go eat if e you need to go places go. >> they're 4th district it awe

auto. >> it was funded through a unanimous donation and of may 2015 an additional $3 million to help to continue the program beyond 18 months. >> you see people coming out they're ready to being so the future homes you know how variable the navigation center is my message for the constituents yes something can be done do break chronic homelessness it is being done. >> this is a community that sets an example but i how to pick an area that was funky they've seen we're trying to do is help their neighbors they've seen getting sicker and more frail and broken down on the streets and welcomed us that's a powerful statement people are exist and president in they're becoming to see the movement for folks and people on

the streets are only survival modes where is there next meal and their itch more carefree. >> the staff here is interpretation the first day i have a appointment and everything was made all you do is go through them this makes a huge difference. >> to get settled in a helping hand, to get on my feet, take care of the issues i have and get out of bed and help. >> even though the navigation center has been up in march 2014 the program is creating successful outreach for it's clients. >> a month ago they came to me

and asked me to go into a new program i moved into here and now 3 months later i have my own place it is mine i lock my door don't worry about my stuff it feels human again.

>> good afternoon i'd like to call the order of regular meeting of united states constitution today is tuesday, september 8, 2015, roll call please. commissioner president caen pr commissioner moran commissioner kwon and commissioner courtney is excused today. >> thank you. >> third item is the approval of the minutes