request. >> anything further mr. chang commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> this issue of notices is bothersome i think this is an understatement you know the recognize by the city attorney that it is both the wireless equipment and lastly equipment and the fact that the map that was drawn on was one radicals us of hundred and 50 feet is sloppy and i think that dpw and related city departments should be more careful about that so quickly the city attorney comes up with a classification that say was improper noticed i again, i take half to council

i understand that in article 25 that that is not required to that multi lingual notice be given but i think that maybe this body should recommend to the board of supervisors given the diversity of san francisco and given the intensity of some of the ethnicity thank you very much at 917 in the evening since 6 o'clock that morning my brain gets shadow but neighborhoods within san francisco maybe many body should send a memo to the board of supervisors for review on the on that notice issue bus given the 50 percent of at least by ascertaining maybe not

having the english only the board of supervisors should review that issue he'll let someone else put forth the motion. >> for consistency we that this permit was issued in error the same motion unless someone else want to make that guess not. >> commissioner honda your motion to grant the appeal and deny it on the base it was defective commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus no commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries and commissioner president lazarus that concludes our business this evening we're adjourned

>> good afternoon and he welcome to the planning commission regular hearing like to remind the public to and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. if i could take roll commissioner president fong commissioner wu commissioner antonini commissioner johnson and commissioner richards.

>> commissioner hillis is expected to arrive shortly and commissioner moore is expected to be absent commissioners, the first item on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of publishing the agenda no item phenomenon continuance, however, under our discretionary review calendar item 9 and 11 have both been withdrawn item 9 barker street request for discretionary review has been withdrawn and case no. at 2529 union street request for a discretionary review has been withdrawn you need to take no action of those matters commissioners that places us under commissioner matters for

adoption of draft minutes there is one small error on the meeting time it is not called the the meeting will come to order others 94 p.m. but 12:05 p.m. >> any comments on the draft minutes with those changes i don't see any public comment is closed. commissioner wu move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to approval of the draft minutes pr commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and place us on item 2 commissioner questions or comments. >> commissioner richards.

>> several things first, you may notice having i have an accent i got braces i won't be offended if you ask me to repeat second we have sometimes department of human resources drs the dr requester is requesting the building permit application because of a massing i know your plan submittal guideline don't require a 3-d rendering maybe staff get the word out to the current planner when there is a massing issue we strongly suggest to the project sponsor to include a 3-d we ask them and that will help out the process third there's an

interesting article burn mid market pea all the things on urban design is a good read it talk about the projects coming before us if you have a chance please try to read it and people talk about displacement in san francisco is interesting we this thing as world problem but an article last friday after the last commissioner about a serial cafe in london you pay for a high price bowl of keeping you informed rally nvenlth not the enough units being created in longing will london >> commissioner antonini. >> very supportive of commissioner richards decision to engage in orbiting domestic work (laughter) other things i wanted to ask in terms of design that in the

future wherever possible if we can be looped into projects whether they're first come forward in their design stages and get a productive of them we get go into the unfortunate situation excellent projects that do all the right things in housing and retail and affordable housing and the design is really bad it is like sometimes, we sculpt them here it takes a long time and expensive for everyone to rework the fourth project 0 so if we accounted get a productive that you have to enjoy the design and appreciate the design or may not at least we'll get a has to do with head start along those links i the fourth go at the request of some neighborhood members to go and see a project

that was goes to be before us next week i think part on pennsylvania and part on texas a pdr housing project spend some time listening to neighbors concerns on that particular project. >> commissioner richards and i q guess what commissioner antonini is saying i visited the same project 739 pennsylvania and third street is the other portion when i met with the representative of the project manager i said hey, we have a good building on indiana did you take a look at the buildings design we kind of poernd over that the project sponsor said the same things and coming here next week we know that former

commissioner is working with the project sponsor and not trying to redesign the building again we get a peak a little bit of a temperature check thanks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to department matters item 3 department matter. >> commissioners you have one many our packet i have no additional announcement number 4 board of appeals and past supervisors and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon aaron starr planning department at the intersection weeks land use the technical amendments sponsored by the mayor and the planning commission was heard with this fanfare it was referred to the board with a with a positive recommendation and interim controls for signs and transit

center planned areas was continued to december 10th to have anymore outreach and the tsf was heard thank you ludicrously the proposed tsf was heard owe october 5th and more comments for the proposal at that weeks hearing they talked about the fees and the amount of garrett and the applicable of the hospitals and post secondary institutions the committee added increasing the fee rate by an additional one dollars per square feet to $8.74 to $19.04 square feet modifying the grandfathering that the projects that fold after the ordinance will pay hundred percent of the

tsf rather than the 50 per and removing the hospital exemption adding the exemption for post secondary you institutions and increasing from 8 hundred to 15 hundred grow square feet and an update every 3 years afternoon 5 years and add the planning commission to the study be conducted sooner and sdrishg the planning department and the controller's office inform about the feasibility of the sxheekz e impact fees about the geographies this item was continued until october 19th so the ordinance can be voted on and also at the land use hearing a hearing on the states on legalization of transmittals in was supported by supervisor wiener this hearing was to review the states of legalization of illegal units that was sported pie supervisor

chiu and became fetish in may of 2014 they provided the supervisors with the interim controls schaejz with the possibility tax reassessment no public comment on this item since 2014 approximately 200 and 40 applications and 62 permits issued and 9 completed the committee discussed the potential ways to increase the use allowing multiple units to be legal vusz those ordinance with the dbi fees legal listing unwarranted unit pass in program since that was a hearing with no action 9 committee voted to table the item following the hearing at the full board supervisor kim's inclusionary housing unit

passed it second reading and it is on the quatro special use district was received and the report was accepted you, however, the moratorium has not been extend and there were no introductio introductions. >> questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. sorry i have a question on the transit charges i when i understand that is still in committee and forwarded to the dpob; is that correct. >> the sign for the transit districts. >> correct. >> it was continued until the 18 i'm sorry the 10 so they could do more outreach. >> so any question is more procedural i read there was at least one supervisor trying to raise the amount significantly for the various categories of the transit fees housing and pdr

and commercial and if there were to happen and the board were to pass somethings a higher amount or before they vote does it come back to use it significantly changed from the time we considered it and given our support audience you're talking about the tsif. >> not increasing the fees i believe this commission had it into go up to 3 percent the board didn't increase it only one dollar per square feet i don't know that were. >> within the range we had allowed them to consider so i forget the details new i understand. >> and the board of appeals did meet late night last time on 678 appeals on box those on the public right-of-way on the

public poles it was defended those last night on 5 of them the appeals were granted and the permit were denied because of noticing issues and the of one to a later data jurisdiction request that's before i the discretionary review the permit was issued earlier this year there were two appeals filled the board amazing uphold the permit with a request that was denied definitely under construction over the course of the construction regarding the penthouse you recall you took off the top floor but allowed the penthouse to remain and the we did determine the building inspection determined it was constructed per plan we're on appeal earlier this year year

with the jurisdiction findings question they can do it only an trooirld case the city intentionally or inenvironmental the board denied the jurisdiction request and i believe minimally visible and any other questions i'll be happy to to discuss them thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim frye to share the results of yesterday's historic preservation commission the first item the commission considered was a community sponsored landmark designation for tennessee street the commissioners may remember this site as the commission approved

a project for partial demolition of the warehouse building and the construction of 69 residential units in october of 2014 of the application from the member of the community suggested there was new information that that warrants the status for the building the commission reviewed the new information felt it building didn't rise to a level to warrant landmark designation and voted unanimously not to add it to the landmark designation program as a result it will precede with that condition the commission 10 provided review and comments on 1126 howard street a california registrationed building on howard street that wanted to use the 809 planning code to allow the retail to office space so

for the rehabilitation plan be development to assure the longtime preservation of the building the commission voted amazing in support of rehabilitation plan and gives a positive recommendations to this commission to grant the change of use when this item is before you in a future hearing the commission reviewed and gave a positive recommendation for the 3 mile contracts they're for 722 signer street to the square and the post street to the national register knob hill apartment hills and 807 morgan the interest rate to the jackson squad car all 3 get a substantial tax savings for

their commitment to a rehabilitation and maintenance plan to preserve those building and finally, the commission gave a final and positive recommendation to the board of supervisors at the looker-on san marcus after the cal house was designed by the husband and wife team that designed the golden gate bridge and the building is considered one of the most more than struts structures in san francisco they amended the resolution and want to extend the period and how the mother of the com portion is a as a significant person because of her association with the will often guard and the commission and the chief of the department of international relations of

san francisco state university it information will be included in the recommendation to the board of supervisors that concludes my remarks unless you have questions. >> no commissions we'll move on to general public comment this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i do have one speaker card. >> okay georgia. >> yeah. that was i who appealed that last night and the jurisdiction i want to say again looking forward i hope here it

is i don't know what you guys tendency look at the hearing you talked about very, very small one of you talked about a glass structure minimal not visual from the street it is visible from the street looking forward i want to say that hope in the residential guidelines come up before you that perhaps something in there more detail of the penthouse- stair penthouses on roof maybe a larger area and maybe not on single-family units like this is so that's all i really came to talk about today again is another building that had a demo that well, i lost my paper oh, here it is this is the house on

chaerls and here open google architecture a 19 hundred square feet how is it is actually, the size of my house i bet the size of most people's houses it is gone and that is the permit said horizon radiation on all floors roof deck and a excavation at the rear yard application for the planning approval i'm sorry building inspection submittal shall be direct evidence and addition to add the becomes and kitchens and surprisingly under additional permit the price was 4. and $80,000 i mean, i felt last week those are demolitions they're saying cooperate it is really a demolition a whole new

building the permit fee should be higher if this is a demolition section 317 i think has problems but i also think that is there to be used and a matter of cooperating somehow with the planning department and planning commission maybe the issue is scrutiny maybe someone about change the facade it is a totally different building those two, that to me is animosity an additional totally new building so i don't know oh, the other thing i thought about what commissioner richards just said the 3-d reddish is a good idea has a dr that will be helpful thank you very much and have a great day.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners tony proud barrierer wearer from 35 years ago and thank you about the building design commissioners there were many loss ends and planning department staff preservation was confusing i want to clear up a couple of issues the first on the date of the baseline the hearing last week staff was moving from completion in 2013 for a plan approved in 2008, you need to have a earlier baseline the plan took 10 years and ceqa is clear about this we didn't have it last week section of the sucking says the baseline is normally you need a big reason not to use the baseline the date of the preparation of the think eir i have here a copy of the

preparation and the date is march 9, 2005 a full 8 years and many hundreds of units built before the count that planning department staff was trying to show you last week so i don't know why they ignored that they know there is the babies in the walk you'll have to ask them why the different numbers and the challenge the page from the study that was in the nexus for impact fees in the eastern neighborhoods plan and than in 2007 the right hand column has a need for the impact for the needs based on the future development of the are eastern neighborhoods plan you know of the future recipe residents and it is 4 acres instead of one acre for parks and middle school we have nun a whole love

childcare spaces we know the new brunswick we're underserved in the transit in the eastern neighborhoods we need more transit lines to this day commissioners eight years later no effort from the city no effort to add funding for the 4 acres of parks and stalled on this ever since the eastern neighborhoods without to chart question had this speckle how it got reduced in the funding find eastern neighborhoods going and again 7 different times i know we have a saying this much infrastructure and this much development it is without this information you have to ask the department staff why it was left out in this presentation thank

you. >> is there any additional public comment? general public comment not seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards to the last speakers points the i asked for a merging to figure out the numbers and the mayor's office accepted in and hold a meeting with the folks from the interested parties to get to the bottom line and what they sha should be it will happen in a couple of weeks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move on to the regular calendar item 5 san francisco rent board presentation and there are copies of his power point available in your packets.

>> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners, thank you for inviting us to be here today, i'm robert the deputy director of san francisco rent board i'll present the overview of the services the rent board officers and landlord and tenants and other members we're very aware at the rent board the laws that the two departments fellow enter

second i hope to overview is helpful in that light i apologize not a power point but a pdf the rent board has been active it is a self-serving from rent increases and at the same time to make sure that the landlord consistent with the guidelines the ordinance also protects tenants from unjust ejections for the record to serve the ethic we - are made up of two landlords representatives, two voting tenants representatives and one voting neutral and then an equal number of alternatives

the rent board commission has rules and regulations and here's hears appeals that the administrative staff issue those ordinance applies to building built fine june 13, 1979, do keep in mind that the certain single-family homes and condo before/79 are - we'll discuss later the housing act rent controls have given tenancy norman's in san francisco doesn't have vacancy controls like other jurisdictions they allow the consumer price index

to mitigate the costs the landlord occurs pass there is no for capital improvement and the new roof or painting of a building or seismic retrofit often the maintenance cost increases water revenue bonds measure pass there is no and utility pass throughs the rent board offers another petition for example, petition to consider from the rent can have it's rents raised to determine in the landlord raise the arraignments rents because the original tenants are vacated if a tenant can't for the record to psa pay a pass through the tenant what apply or file on appeal to be granted relief from

the pass throughs. >> the rent board receives tenant petitions if a tenant buildings their paid a rental rate in excess of rate permitted or asked to pay an increase they can file a petition an important point related to the law is that when a tenant rents a rental unit it includes the unit itself but includes housing services represent in connection with the unit any service or amenity not to exceed and here he apologize a rather long list important to know repairs, replacement maintenance, painting

are light and heat and elevator services and janitor services fortunes and parking and rides by agreement for the specific number of occupant and whether or not it permits subletting and any other privileges for the facilities a landlord is required to have justify cause to sever the following housing services from the tenancy garage and parking facility and driveways, storage spaces and laundry rooms and decks and upon the on the same lots or kitchens and laundry in the single-room occupancy hotels on the subject of housing services specifically that require a just cause for resolve or removal we've had a number of questions about removing tenant storage to

convert it to a new housing units or add it to a new housing units 10 or 15 years ago the city's sdroifk directives to save parking storage today to have as many units as possible for parking or storage due to the housing shortage it is unclear if there is a just cause reason under the ordinance for a removal of the tenants storage or parking to exert is to a new houcht a tenant may file for the services in order for the rent reduction to be grant the tenant must prove the decrease in service was substantial and the leonardo da vinci failed to make repairs or restore it within a reasonable period of time after receiving notice other petition

that the rent board receives is failure to book an increase proper water pass through or a god pass through the fair share of the residence and petitions and much u unlawful rent to petitioner we accept and investigate wrongful evictions although superior court says they're an unlawful detainer their limited in that regard just cause evictions in which quite a hot topic today in rent-controlled units the landlord ms. have just cause exemptions when a tenant lives with a landlord those reasons are non-payment of rent and breach of agreement and nuisance

and demolishing or otherwise permanently reaching a unit from housing use ownership or relative more often and capital accommodate and failure to grant the landlord assess as required by law if you look at the slides i want to point out the blue slides we receive thirty notices per year i want to highlight that because 16 cause is a lot to remember we're talking about a smaller use with some regularity the blue ones have more significant and i will limit my comments to those causes in the slides i wanted to touch a little bit on owner move-in and others that are too often cited in san francisco owner move-in and the

ellis act those two are similar when it comes to the data that the rent board collects about them than many of the justify causes to shorn shorten the similarities in boo cases the rent board has an additional role the rent board is tasked with collecting or having every eviction in san francisco filed for rent-controlled unit filed with us equipment for 3 dates quite 90s notices the rent board has additional responsibility to those two causes in accommodate in into cases the rent board has to have constraint with the assessor-recorder when we receive a notice based the ellis act or owner move-in not the

notice but the notice of recipe sorry the notice of intent to withdraw rental units a process by which a landlord may rescind an ellis in other cases it is a filing of a notice and it is not generally rescinded we don't follow-up on what happens a notice was filed that was the end of our process and also in into the cases the tenants crack us requesting a rent right they be notified and again under the market currently, the notice of constraint real prompt going runs for 3 years and move in the rent must be kept the same if so offend for rental as you may know owner move-in is

that of a relative the principle pace the residents for 36 months the ellis act didn't have any requirements the ellis act means all the units are bronze from housing use and not spef as long as that is not residential housing i just want to give you a slide of the current relocation for most of the evicts and in previous slides we put a r on those that require that it is temporary different for land remediation in the heat code and less than 20 days under california law a different law but in general those are the ones the internal revenue is similar we're looking at about

55, 41 per tenant currently and the superior court resolute against the ordinance two days ago you i wanted to confuse gcf an of this is tracking current eviction notices the last 10 years we're focused only but for reference a lot of disagreement we're in an epidemic i showed you this year's for argument i wanted to focus the next slide on 10 years we look at the current trend but this is in the slide as well and so here we're talking about u looking at evictions based on the no fault causes the blue lines is breach

of rental agreement and the red is nuisance and the purple is illegal use and the light blue line is approves tenants so to keep in mind what those numbers are and how they've increased over the 10 years we're not going back 20 or thirty years but a marked increase in the no fault evictions and we gifted those into no fault it is convenient but not always hundred percent adequate because all of them have individual conditions and requirements; right? so let's go to the no fault eviction notices 4r50b9 the blue line the owner move-in evictions that is the ellis act this is in red the demolition of rental unit is

light green and then we've got the purple line that is condo conversion sale of the unit that is generally flat i will go on to just to clarify one of the things that is important as we worry about it eviction crisis no everyone is looking to the rent board for data we've constantly asked data, data data what is happening how many evictions this rent board is tasked with collecting the eviction notice their supposed to forward a copy to a 3 day quite notice not an actual evictions equally others your that some don't fulfill the requirement it is you know hopefully for whatever reason wear tracking trends this is a

common thing a lot of questions about how many specific evictions happen in san francisco i'll say that the term of eviction is hard to begin it depends on who independence it is different methods of collecting the data we're not collecting eviction notices filed two causes that are different moving on the ellis we have a collection of data for those two, however, it may not be perfect so the rent board has others function a small synopsis determining what the review the relocation exclaims for the related housing promotions and make advisory for the hope 6 and

the determinations related to the violation of the hotel policy means we provide public information and counseling to accomplish that mission we have a counseling unit larger because our law is very, very complicated we have a call center and people are dedicated to making that understandable we get thirty thousand calls a year and a administrative meeting with the law judges they provide emotion and revolution services with the administrative law judges we g get 2 thousand petitions a year the grateful amount of work we do is involved in emotion it is a importantly what you to rove issues how we

get our work done it is people come back not what the same problem the rent board is dedicated to the enforcement of the rent ordinance as committed to treatment and provided to provide the community services with the appropriate services and to make those services available to all san francisco communities i'll be happy to answer any questions that you have >> we'll open up for public comment first first if there is any public comment on this item. >> okay nightly public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> i have a couple of questions we've seen i think here since my year and one month on the commission two requests for demolishing 26 avenue and

the 1 on irving street in november on the no fault evictions graph the green line shows roughly 25 units removed in 2013-2014 and 50 removed in this past year 2018 how did that happen with us not knowing it how do you demolish a unit administrative? >> if i how the requirement for the demolition of a unit require that the landlord obtain all the necessary permits on or about to serve a tenant national beginning what the necessary preliminaries are there is a great deal of controversy out through two things one is that you're seeing some number have seen some unit the dwelling

units the landlords claims instead of demolishing it environmental impact the tenant for illegal use and maybe. >> is that for legal and illegal the one you're asking about it the demolition. >> right it that illegal. >> in this case it is much more defined maybe part of the question for dbi and not us self-examination we know we don't have you expertise of what is required the problem with an legal unit you have to go to a permitting process but linlz whether to remove something that is sufficient as the permitting process i don't believe there is a permit to remove an light at the end of the tunnel per say we've seen permits to do work

and there is there are notice of violation for using it incorrectly in any case dbi may be able to answer the question there is a varty i have things to remove those the illegal use every single and the second one is demolishing a wunlt a variety of causes. >> maybe the zoning administrator can talk about a demolition of unit like we're seeing may be one today that will catch those or done by dbi or administrative. >> you'll see projects that are removal of linlz and the removal of those those are going to the process and the rent board is seeing the 90s notice but but not before you those are

not league of women's that in limited case brings the removal of linlz. >> i'm assuming most of those are illegal unit. >> it didn't show that probably but in terms of permits to rove remove illegal units there is a bulk of that. >> they don't show up anecdotal but for the most part. >> the cross referencing to see if in the more clarity that talks about the unit in some of the statistics we have i'd like to look at that i guess a couple other questions one thought 0 any thought about

the vacancy roughly 25 or 15 thousand vacant units whether in their sold or condo converted but 10 thousand nodding why they're vacant any thoughts on helping to bring those units on the market to. >> we we have no data we hear the same thing the argument by and situations we see but all anecdotal we have no data we operate like a court and carry it out. >> one last thing it looks like we're losing roughly 10 percent of the rental units this is hundred and 74 units can you put it in context those numbers add 80 up to a couple of

thousands all those different numbers for cause and not for cause. >> that's correct wear shy of 2200 in if fiscal year that the total of eviction notice see not saying that's the loss of rental units. >> good point okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> very good report is a few questions and comments the first is the consul general index it is bay area or san francisco or national. >> it is bay area c pie pi and 60 percent. >> 60 percent. >> of the cost of living for the san francisco bay area. >> that's typically higher than san francisco second question he the fourth the math quickly i wanted to make sure i read the thing

2014-2015 it only looks like the no fault is 26 percent of the evictions the highest percentage around 74 percent of eviction were for fault in the categories you presented to us. >> well, so we taken this from the charts. >> yeah. from the charts. >> gave me >> we did a different number just yeah general you're looking for more evicts from fault. >> significantly more in the usually the case over the years or has that been more no fault evictions in the last couple of years than the case before. >> in general that's the case yeah. >> yeah. >> and again, this is not tracking rent notices.

>> right. >> so - >> in their not even filed 2 would be higher for fault those are not the statistics. >> higher for fault correct. >> it is that the public knows that we hear a lot of comment open it and most of evictions in missing my estimation three-quarters of them for fault that is not going to change people will still get evicted if they don't pay the rents what anothers cities and county or cities in san francisco have rent control at this point. >> in san francisco bay area or the whole. >> in the city. >> in the bay area you have limited rent control 16 cities

throughout california limited rent control in santa fe and things happen in richmond and haywood maybe look at how rent control looks like in an individual city someone can have a price increase or various reasons there are five or six. >> i'm more interested in city's cities that have rent control than the city of san francisco. >> after the reversal housing act in 1995 the rent control in san francisco look different and there was a disparity from city to city but fine points between them all there are differences and some of them are inherited. >> thank you this is a question for staff i want to see an analysis any connection distinct cities that have rent control as we do and the cost of

housing a direct correlation i know many of the ones that are mentioned have fairly high housing costs not sure that is a cause and effect but interesting to study them another question about ellis if you ellis act the unit it there is a time to be ruptured for rental in the future put back on the arithmetic i thought i heard 7 or 10 years something like that. >> to remove rental hours for quite some. but brought back inform into the market the two there's a 5 year vacancy and offered at the same rent to the same tenant if we wish to render

or return and for 10 years offered to the same tenant as maneuvering. >> that's a possibility but possible the income could come down what's the test a 50 percent occupancy that you know being used as the - a lot of the rent-controlled units have used by people that have investments outside of san francisco and can keep their rent-controlled units as a secondary in san francisco. >> just make one clarification the ellis act even though the unit can be brought back into use there could be a lawsuit one has to it is a little bit more complaeks than 4 or 10 or two years those are not the only possible considerations bringing that bank in i want to make that

clear on the pete pier 19 it requires the tenant principle pays the residents and if one could guess complicate cases you know they're incredibly complicated cases so it is the preponderance of the evidence to try to show if someone is using some other residents i can tell some are simple and someone graduated from school and goes to hallway anyway they come to the opera once a month but more complex. >> the test will generally be a 50 percent test if there is any i mean, i know it is more complicated but a line when it is your primary residence. >> it is a line but not a bring out with an 0 preponderance of evidence someone can be gone for two

years serving in the military and the residents pays the rents and someone can take care of a mother across the east coast so if under those a good reason with why the person is absent you're looking at others evidence like homeowners are they provisions in the unit do they own the unit we're trying to figure out the totality of the situation i'll be glad to get but the section it explores the defining. >> one other final comment it looks like even though we have 2200 evictions in 2014-2015 it is significantly lower than the numbers of 98 to 2000 by your graph. >> it is correct there is significantly lower i think the

argument around that to present to both sides you, you know, some per regular buy outs to assume to legislation but, however, since march 7 to today, we have a report it is you can't compare it to a previous period of time so in future times buy outs as well. >> your include buy outs above and beyond. >> we're not making a direction what they mean not a determination those are removed from the market or not available we'll report on what we are legally required to report but generally most of those are people ask the same questions. >> i understand it is a valid point you won't have the figures for possible buy i take it for 1998 to 2000 it has to be your

chairing apples to apples here. >> right commissioner hillis. >> thank you for this a couple of clarifications on your chart with the beauty out the catchall rental agreement and nuisance and non-payment of rent so what are those ones. >> there is about seven hundred and 50 breach the rental agreement evictions but if i'm understanding nuisance and non-payment of rent and illegal use are breaches of rental agreement is the blue a catchall of everything else. >> the breach that covers those things in terms of a 3 day non-payment of rent is technical would be given for a 5 day of the breach so. >> i'm trying to understand.

>> in most cases there are speculation out so that 3 day non-payment rent goes a different direction and people give notice pursuant to that but they'll give it for the breach of the rental agreement something in writing for the two parties but illegal use using the rental unit for illegal use you'll not use it for that purpose people go separately and equally when it goes to nuisance even though the lease says you shouldn't create a nuisance most people will go after it for nuisance for just cause because the state laws gives them. >> what are the cases tend to be there is the highest number

and if not non-payment of rent is just cause. >> the non-restricted payment of rent we track only those that are filed; right? we have some. rightwo: every single i want to clarify no law that requires them to the filed you have to look at it the analyzing the numbers they are not required to be filed on the breach you have a variety of things and i'm afraid that i couldn't give you a number because we don't track that specific thing we'll have a reporter come into how many other than evictions. >> that's what i thought a short-term rental over the last year i was trying trying to get our arms around those types of evictions. >> i can't give you that without the numbers so. >> those cases come to you;

right? to the rent board. >> they may well come to us but i can't quantify those compared to everything alien we've seen cases trying to determine the current use like a single-family units or a two unit building how do you determine that it is a single-family not subject to rent control and being used a two unit building. >> for the rent ordinances it is the use of unit so if it is being used as two unit even though this use is not permitted by another department the rental coffers that the zoning status specifically is stretches registering to unit that are in non-xhormgs with other unit. >> if someone adds a unit to a

single-family homes is that because it is built subject to rent control or not. >> i think that as complex question based on the recent legislation that was passed is to legalize a number of units and the point to follow the designation. >> okay. >> but it is quite complex and probably answered better by the department of building inspection for the two unit to be created in conjunction with the proprieties passing through here that has specific requirements that are passed as much as they're attached to a development agreement with the city that a bigger developer would have to insure that the ones that should be under rent control are and those with generally showdown i shouldn't be wouldn't be but the general you know intent to keep as many

rent control as possible. >> if i add an in-law unit it is subject to rent control. >> that's a good question for dbi if so it a brand new unit i'm not sure maybe that the quiet possible that the permit to get the unit would then be under rent control i'm hundred percent sure something that the dbi will do it we'll look at it later on and looking at the different laws i apologize. >> and then o l i evictions can you the city is limited i mean, you could prior every units in the two unit building if a person dout bought it limited to one unit. >> a limit you're right if you

go back great before the org days changes to the laws in 1997 a 10 percent ownership and no limits no relocation as many units and 10 percent ownership and 10 owners in the building today, the law limits it to one unit eviction of one unit for the landlords ownerships and occupancy and the relatves in the occupancy within 9 building or seeking simultaneous position. >> could be more than one unit. >> correct but only for one landlord and one additional for the landlords family. >> it you go back to prior when it law was impacted they've spiked the last couple of years do we see a decrease. >> we were paying for the

balance report not due until april it is difficult to analyze that in that particular way you begin to see a variety of changes in the 7 and 98 to the o m i law a result the proportions and a variety of changes difficult to draw a direct correlations and the fact of the defaming doom so we'll not be able to make that specific 60 regulation but we'll present all the different changes and the gravels that follow it and maybe let people make their own you go conclusions. >> do you have the power to ban o m i or the city's - >> could the city entirely i don't know that i think unlikely to be banned for a variety of reasons but something more

specific i have doubts to something like that could survivor a legal challenge but can't speak to if there is a precedence setting case and if there's a ellis acted or without having to over back to the former tenants it is back under rent control right reporter so if you waited 10 years for a ellis act and started to rerent the building it is subject to rent control again. >> that's correct the market determines the maneuvering once the vacancy it comes in as a rent control it is hard to look at the recall rental units because we'll have to begin that there is gray areas everywhere. >> brought up the butte buy out

that are recorded in a landlord and tenant agree to a buy out this is supposed to be recorded to the rent board. >> that's correct. >> you're seeing those. >> we're seeing a significant amount correct. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks for the presentation i wanted to ask about when rent board and planning department staff interact. >> so what are certain types of cases or situations i everything that condominium conversion is one. >> the section 317 is one of the main interactions with the rent board and referrals to the rent board been great and getting staff information to review the acts under 317 historical for general advertising signs for rent board and the l aj and been for many

years now. >> so can you say how that process happens is that there a database that staff goings-on disposes to see if there is an eviction or staff looking at the files. >> we have a form we work with rent board to develop and we send it over and get a this response there is discussion about more public assessable information more electronically assessable easier was from talking to the staff there is some i think there's been frustration shared about the search ability and the way to search through the information and invitation to nice to get data feed and hopefully able to work with you think it our general problem we are pretty slow our staff

resources are not great 32 ftes and none really destined assigned to make it go from process one to two but happy in a longer-term to make that assessable our staff is constantly communicating with each other and much more often than that not only for the rent board conducts but for a variety of reports providing questions and data but that is a good point and glad to take it back to see what we can do it is okay for now but over the long term to get that data. >> also with the shortly applications part of amended legislation at the end of the august this is one of the things we're screening for as well. >> for us the to some stent the data is readily easy at the

first level but a hit you want as much information we haven't tracked not in electronic formula we have to go back to paper. >> okay. >> well, thank you to going into departments for the work the more communication seems like a lot of cases for the commission to know more about the eviction history it is helpful to have that information airport commissioner richards and i guess a couple of fallout questions when you violate a zoning are whatever family landowner and i were the tenant and not good faith and brings up it on the market do you have an enforcement team to determine if that happens like we do. >> no, we do not we're an

administrative body for lack of a better way we work like a court we hear the cases and provided some san francisco police commission so the public can understand the laws but beyond that it is just the judge will hear both sides and meet and we'll take an active role we are an agency that is just heading out the law overseeing by a commission that is the landlords and tenants working together we don't take an advocacy prospective so - >> so first place a tenant and got evicted illegal my appeal process to rectify the unjustice would be the courts. >> generally speaking we referred someone the rent board what refer after an investigation to the district attorney or the city attorney but it requires a consensus of

the commission and wolf wrongful for us to be involved it is egresses and violates the law but in most cases that seems like that we think that someone else needs to take that up there is conflicting information. >> so the commission allows the initiation of the city attorney to proceed with the investigation. >> they could refer someone to the city attorney and one the other questions the commissioner mentioned how much of this data is online can anybody look at the rent control or. >> we don't have united specific online apart from the data sf you know we'll have vacancy control per say xyz is a rental

unit the cases comes and then you know often have more that is not as simple as online some of the concerns around it is that people should be prevented from other tenancies from other units there are concerns about the data we have. >> so unlike the information that is tied into the assessor-recorder is the rental stabilization fee. >> i don't know if you're map it is the g s maintained i've never seen it there. >> the homeownership exemption on the website i believe is the case. >> that's a powerful thing to know thank you. >> but not necessarily rent board fee; right? >> i'm assuming the homeownership there is a homeowner living interest you

assume that. >> correct. >> should be the case. >> well, i made a mistake trying to go two homeownership exemption they caught me i was not trying to get the san francisco or whatever out of the city's coffers they caught me and i'll not do it twice asia commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much for the presentation there's been a lot of times we talked about things that the rent board does work on mostly around evictions and so i appreciate a lot more information here he have two more mosaic questions the first one looks like you were reading our comments there were a lot of information that's fantastic. >> sure i can send that to you. >> well, that's - >> (laughter) you well, you read it so pent

the second thing and would love the reference of the charts a little bit more regularly we'll talk about the preferences in the next week we're having many more policy discussions in the planning commission i'd like really appreciate it the two charts on the no fault and the fault evictions so we can see the total number other things like the titles instead of assess that is fantastic so i appreciate that and let me work on this. >> send to me i'll do it. >> i'll send you the data no problem. >> i appreciate that just it sounds like other commissioners asked a lot of the questions i'll not re-ask but certainly is a as a general impression from

the data and other hearings that would be helpful i think the rent board does a fair amount of interpretation as well that is one thing in my mind because i think commissioner hillis and commissioner richards gave examples of drs we're trying trying to a assess whether or not it is legal unit or illegal unit whether anyone is evicted one thing that is helpful or even it is a gray sort of fuzzy line not the information everyone has and the rent board has a fair amount of interpretation over what is the use. >> what is a unit so i appreciate having a little bit more detail around that and then what is going on. >> go angles it is the time it is underlying but you have a

quick question and really fast one this may seem small in the advisory committee of the traffic first on the reversal or rental ordnance they're living in a unit you guys don't look at whether or not it is a legal unit or illegal unit do you looking look at where under as whereas or rental agreement or someone is paying the rent and living in the space. >> correct section 1.17 i'm pawar fraying a unit is a unit regardless of legal or zoning status so the rent board looks at it do we look at it we look at everything we look at in the hearing and anything they can provide like we'll look at the evidence people have and tenants are not required to have a lease to have rights as

tenants. >> right. >> certainly the law of the population in san francisco a wide variety of investigation levels and some people pay their rent with cash and a handshake that didn't mean they're not tenant so they pay rent in cash or whatever. >> thank you. i appreciate that so you know that comes up with b r with a enhance in the back it was unclear whether or not they're a tenant and late one maybe that is one of the reasons i referenced our written comments in the beginning of our presentation you ender e.r. means o mentioned this basil_hawkins rental law i don't remember you getting back to this topic. >> maybe i'm off script. >> okay. >> so the point with that we

do take addition for thank you for noticing i was wondering that and skipped over that part of the cost of hawkins allows the vacancy control for prior to san francisco in the jurisdictions like berkley in san francisco in all california it allows the vacancy decontrolled when the original occupants move in and no longer permanently reside there my comments we take petitions if a landlords worries about to have it determined or not that tenants qualified as a original under the section or not it is also not the on the law that deals with vacancy control with the law on the books and section of rules and regulations that

defines tenant has a non-original allows the market-rate we provide that for landlords is is a a determination in the case of the cost of hawkins the landlord can notice and go straight to court no requirement for a petition to be filed in this particular sflaunz what is i i guess we have a number of buildings where we like to see cost of hallway kings for new communication in the city what is the future impact of that 1995 law on new construction in terms of of the original verse the non-restricted - and cost of hawkins deals with vacancy

control and/or or vacancy decontrol in post 1995 and january of 96 we see families that owns condominium and decontrol in any cases roommate situations where the original ones not there anymore and deals with the new construction can be covered by rent control so with an of those that is confusing we're talking about one aspect the cost of hawkins to speak to that part of it new construction after february 1st, '94 and has provisions that elements the jurisdictions that defined what is exempt and not but generally a key date when we are looking at the addition of new unit

whether or not it is rental unit rent-controlled those are some of the acres issues we have to look at in development agreement i agree to add a number of rental unit and the developer is getting a consideration for the wave of that cost hawkins act that is generally how it is tied in recent times a number of court cases in the last 5 or 10 over and over 15 years that i clarified that that is where we're at the inn the trajectory but in the cost of new construction a new building it is just a new building in san mateo it built from scratch or after 1995 subject to renter controls. >> commissioner antonini. >> my understanding the application of cost of hawkins under new construction allows the sponsor to have apples and

oranges built on site because if it was wasn't for the exception of cost of hawkins no ability to control the prices and all the other unites are market-rate and begin at whatever cost renter wants to do so but the affordable units have to be kept at a specific level. >> that's correct. >> your. >> mirena burns it is a question that commissioner johnson was asking about the cost of hawkins agreement this commission seen those are part of our inclusionary housing program so when a project sponsor is going to provide inclusionary housing unit on site when project sponsors wish to do we have at cost of hawkins the city is providing a benefit

to the project some consideration to the project in exchange for the agreement to provide rental units under cost of hawkins we were prohibited from price controls on rental units so i think that is specific type of agreement you were talking about it is a in this case character under our inclusionary housing program and different from the broader discussion of cost of hawkins we're having right. >> thank you that's the application that is useful to me. >> that was helpful that confused the heck out of me now not anywhere the general cost codify hawkins and register r register housing if you built something february.

>> okay february 2nd. >> basically says no rent control we have cost of hawkins agreement that we call them that that is where it is from the simply is choosing to provide rent control housing we have to provide a benefit so we have agreement that we caller under the cost of hawkins give something in return for price control. >> that's right. >> we by definition don't see that because those units are don't have different controls. >> so thank you city attorney that make sense especially we're looking at more potential benefits that developers may undertake looking

at gent bonus and incentives those all are potentially under the cost of hawkins agreement to understand i know sort of the philosophy. >> you can see by the questions this is crossing over into a crossing ether with this commission any additional updates will be helpful and the check back in every 6 months. >> i'll be here on the 22 at least that's on my calendar thank you very much and we do work together and improving that relationship with exchanging information, etc. >> commissioners we have a short calendar but we'll. >> good afternoon and welcome

back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, october 8, 2015, i'd like to disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on item 6 at 1532 harrison a conditional use authorization good afternoon commissioner rick planning department staff the the item before you is a qualifying for the proposed project on harrison street the project sponsor is requesting conditional use for a health bonus in the special use and off-street parking in a permitted amount in 9 equivocation the project is seeing a administrations to the surveillance freight loading and parking the promoted project is demolition the surface parking lot and the new communication of

a 65 foot tall be mixed use building with a hundred and 36 eyewitnesses units with ground floor commercial spaces and off-street parking and one car share and hundred 36 class one and two bikes that is 32 studios and 19 one bedrooms units and two bedroom units open space at a 2 courtyard the project includes the streetscape with the walk widening and street trees and the education of on street the conditional use authorization will allow packing a ratio per 5 or 68 parking spaces the department has reviewed it and supports it for rear yard and open space and the

freethd loading from the outstanding muni design the department did not support the conditions on the street a curve and parking entrance of the 20 feet as the project we're requesting a central selma the project is to provide 16 percent of the total number of units be designated as part of the inclusionary housing program it contains hundred and 36 units and the project sponsor will fulfill this by providing 22 units onsite for rent it is for the cost hawkins agreement with the sfefks in the ordinance the project sponsor reviewed the project with the entertainment commission on september 1, 2015, the entertainment's requests a

additional measure of noise for chapter 116 projects as of today, the department receives corresponds and since the publication of the packet i've provided a handout felt public correspondence and those correspondencess have expressed support and opposition to clarify the information that is represented in some of the correspondence the department notes from the ground floor retail use meets the requirements of 145.4 it is important to know that the ground floor seeping eating heat is for non-uses located in a split height zoning district up to 55 feet tall with the conditional use authorization granted by the planning commission the project will

constrict up to 65 feet a scuffle ground floor that provides for an infrastructure story that approach is approved by the planning commission and if have a negative impact or the quality of the design in addition the project continues to meet the department guidelines for the ground floor residential design after analyzing the project staff recommends approval specifically it complies with the equitable of cable it is located in zoning district where residents and a ground floor commercial uses are permitted it replies a surface parking lot and a mixed use parking lot with the ground floor i want with private and open space is will add hundred

new housing stock with the number exceeding the 42 unit for single-family units and the project adds onsite affordable units up to 16 percent or 22 new units as designated as part of inclusionary the project sponsor is present and has a presentation presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners michael i'm a partner at build inc. as you may know we're a local real estate development company in hayes valley above blue bottle on lyndon we are a developer in generously engaging the neighborhood in projects this specific project began with a ugly 98 space parking lot a neglected alleyway and neighbors

and echo tavern and mike that unfortunately had to leave they thought their item would be heard earlier and other business to attend to out of brainstorming with the eagle is one of the gay leather bars as a special cultural plays there is in that area a history of clchlt distinct new residential uses and night club we're proud of what we think with a be exceptional gaefrment with the lgbtq and the immediate neighbors we're proud of that this has over 17 neighborhood meetings which we've had many, many attendees and we'll have one beer bust at eagle supervisor jane kim attended and other my brother's keeper r

members of the commission this is a special design walk us through as quickly as i can i wanted to say our design team is here mark if macy architecture and escaping architecture and the nonprofit hopefully be developing the plaza adjacent to the site is here today i have a try to move that. >> you can use the other mike. >> the site is at 12th street and harrison a micro neighborhood bounded by thirty foot alley and selma across the street and selma street as you can see where the surface parking lots is this is a funny slide is talks about we want to take a mass and give it a

special exterior and slice it and green it up we wanted to be as creative as possible the big story what we think is a great precedence we chopped a massive building two 3 smaller buildings that are more consistent point fine-grain fabric that makes selma so special we wrapped that block in a crusty metal skin to reflect the industrial heritage and added greenery on the garden and on the terraces. >> this diagram show us we took a mass instead of the conventional approach we chopped that courtyards both the beautiful garden lanes here's the site as it standards the

eagle on the left i, see the leather pride flag and we made an effort to hold this corner and establish an edge with the mixed use neighborhood here's the view of norfolk and harrison a chain-linked fence with the parking lot today a vision we hope this place will look like in the tomorrow in the evening and day this alley has great potential this lot has over many curve cuts we'll reduce to 29 stoops fully clievent with the residential guidelines that align those streets we are urged by one commissioner the back lighting to create light on norfolk to

make a safe place at night it is a sexual place this elevation is elevation we've seen from 12th street on the far right the corner building on harrison with the 16 foot clear ground floor rail and the middle building that has a large central stoop 5 feet above grade that assess the main building in between the 25 foot garden los angeles ways that has a gate for residents to enter peak in as a member of the public and see the garden they're not hinged and you smaller building to the left is tufshd i tucked between a two flat remedy building that is staying in place in just in case you're wondering a section how that lays out this

extraordinarily density in a 65 foot envelope he want to pause i'll august if so it done right this an phenomenal approach for san francisco we've heard the city we know with the city feels schajd by height what a great approach without alexander height the gangways do this in support of folks that live in the fluent i unit in the spirit of the planning code below grade is the hidden ground parking garage as you can see in red the ground floor retail that activates harrison and 12th street i wanted to walk through the lane way the further to the north the closet to what we call the lopez residence before and after shots we begun

fence that allowed probably have a plexi glass screen so the members of the public can peak onto the space and residents into the lane ways to maximum light and air this is the central way to the proposed design beyond the brick selma building it is so good we get a peak view and looking at the light sculpture at night and this is giving you a sense how inside those lane ways these balconies look we're excited about those gardens blow and of not the expressed open air passages we have the industrial inspired passage it echo the

selma alleys with the old industrial between storage and retail santa clara on stevenson and the other israel and finally the benefit of this garden level excuse me. we were able to get an additional 20 excuse me. an additional 16 transmittals we were actually able to add 3 bmr units lovingly thousand grow square feet of area and an additional 65 thousands of impact fees this is showing you the ground floor you can see the corner retail activating 12 and harrison that is a 16 foot very active and transparent space the liquor the main library from harrison is 16 ground to floor very active and connects into the retail all the purple arrows

we're showing how we activated the edges those are different insures avenue harrison or 12 there are many ways to enter this building that is good for the neighborhood and good for public safety it also fully complies with the residential guidelines and down at the garden layer this slide shows there are to bedroom and studios opening on the garden and we put two bedrooms if so a place for small kids to play on a protected green space and then finally this is showing you the basement garnish garage weave put in a ton of micro storage those to compacting and one-on-one bicycle parking we're proud of the balance it is the right balance for the neighborhood you by way of that's over 20 spaces and

finally i'll go quickly we'll be back in november for the agreement and nevertheless to say, an essential part of the project we'll wait to talk about it then with that, i'll ends on this slides the helicopter looking at the rooftop space and the straight if for some reason the commission didn't want to approve the plazas we got a unanimous vote for the in kind fee waiver support t commissioners. >> opening it up for public comment i have some speaker cards here (calling names). >> if your name has been called,

feel free please approach the podium. >> i goose if you want to line up on this side cue up you know. >> yep. >> i'm darin i want to say a few words in support of this project as a brief background for the last 12 years living directly across the street you'll see the building i live in in a couple of pictures in the presentation i said to briefly say the project is a win on all fronts san francisco spell needs more housing to that end this project is an excellent repurposing of underutilized

space in terms of the neighborhood the developers have telegraph hill and respectfully engaged the members of the community in the design the project i met with them four or five times up shot i'm here today and we have no invested interest in the project other than the project being in the neighborhood i thought that was worst my time to speak in favor of it other than i look forward to having a couple of hundred new neighbors and the greening of my zone thanks for listening. >> hello, i'm a member of the ben neighborhood group and a residents directly opposite the parking lot that will replace

for 12 months marry my wife and i have a larj frontage that is probably the most impacted residents in terms of the height and traffic and the new residents coming to the neighborhood i have discussions with the developers and in fact, the other members of the hoa welcome the design it is well executed i like how it is evolved and other residents and we would much rather have new neighbors thank the exist parking lot that electricities nothing i'll have and is it attracts the non-restricted emergency line i call that's it we welcome the project hope you say yes. >> good afternoon rob pool

with the san francisco action coalition thank you for the opportunity to speak our members reviewed this project a few months ago and we're supportive because of the underutilized parking lot and in the neighborhood is transit and neighborhood may not and a gay night life but also for some of the obviously creative reasons you. >> in the presentation we like the living israel and port the excavation of 5 foot below grade but for a building of more bmr units this is a good car parking radio and bike parking ratio and the project we support the project sponsors 80 decision to pursue the in kind agreement unanimous i u unanimous among your neighbors and a direct

connection to the project not seeing a lot of projects that pursue the in kind agreement but in delores it as great place to walk and hang out and safe on top of that is terrific community each of as said from the two previous speakers they've engaged the neighbors and have the neighborhood support we'll hope you support it today thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is garnering i'm the green trip planner at transform a nonprofit organization in oodles we're committed to transportation to achieve for equitable ways to u ways to get around all people regardless every income have a right to have transportation

choices and create diverse types of housing that creates people to jobs and schools and opportunities i'm a proud to announce this is the first project in san francisco to achieve green trips upon project approval green trip certification recognizes and supports low traffic that includes three in the bay area the multi projects will reduce the traffic and green house gas emissions and keep san francisco and the rest the bay area more affordable we want to see more housing for people build i know i can wants to get involved one dowel to support the transportation option for future residents and the sooufrpd neighborhoods it is below the told her for low daily driving as well a maximum of - and for a

certification we require harrison to implement who two strategies that over for hundred percent parking for all parking spaces residents pay parking separate from rent one secured bike space and outreach for all residents for more details river refer to our project certification report the harrison have any options for transportation needs they don't need a personal vehicle to get around thank you commissioners and support this 132 harrison. >> okay is there any additional public comment532 ha >> okay is there any additional public comment.

>> local union 101 four we support in project for the many reasons by other speakers this is a benefit to the local community it is goes to enhance having a sacrifice parking garage we like the packets that were talked about in addition the 22 below-market-rate are great and lastly i'll be remiss if i didn't say this project will be mr. pilpal union construction workers to stimulate the local economy and a pathway for the local residents the sheet metal

workers ask you to support this project thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners phil with the san francisco electrical contractors association and electrical workers local 6 i'd like to echo the comments of danny campbell we're here really proud to be in full support of the project and hope we believe that when we're reached out to like build inc. with the residential hens trained in san francisco are part of judicial error that definitely benefits the community and is needs to be recognized as a direct community benefit i'm been here in the city my whole life and frequented the neighborhood going to concerts and the fulsome area for as long

as i can i buy pie moisture gear and again, we're here in sponge support of the project on harrison. >> is there any additional public comment public comment is closed. and commissioner richards. >> how do i say that the eagle is a iconic place i've been going through when the leather and gaze bars were located far away those kinds of folks not welcome and yet we call those places i'm glad to see that the engagement with the community it supple pens and it is incredible sorry for the braces i think

oriental i heard about this project oh, god with the 5 feet issues but when applied the trade offs are worth that we're getting a lot more than giving up i applaud the architect and appreciate not giving us a junky aggressive building like other project sponsors do i like the green ways i think that the cac supports for the project is another great thing i can't wait to see that i support the reduction in parking the 68 spaces i had a conversation with the gentleman i appreciate the fluctuate happy to have the support of eagle we balance having the parking in the castro

that is a traditional gay neighborhood integrated with folks of all walks of life i really hope that you know we don't hear i don't know how to mitigate this but maybe when people move in they'll understand a leather bar so we don't hear about the kids with chaps on when we go in and out of the bar it is fantastic and i think this could be harmonious i completely support this project. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i'm also very supportive first of all, i want to comment on the design is great we're facing a lot of large buildings on larger lots a couple over potrero hill and you've done a great job in breaking up the mass of building and getting our program to work i appreciate that and we'll look to the model as we look forward on larger

lots you did it in dog patch with other architect and different buildings we need to take in other places we did get overwhelms on the 5 foot adverse this is not an exception we're not making any exception we have 15 foot ground floor and retail and able to get another floor of building in an envelope we'd approve i think that is great we get a directive from the mayor to maximize the number of units we can build within height and gent o indents limits i appreciate that the cities in those half underground unit in new york and d.c. they work so i appreciate that a question for staff on the issue about norway informational street entrances can you explain that to us with what is being

asked you said santa fe staff doesn't august a. >> a code requirement limit 28 feet and code will limit it to 20 feet so the department is not supportive of the 29 curb cuts on norway informational street we ask the commission to restrict that to the 20 feet. >> it is a car share background does that include the 29 feet. >> correct it will accommodate the upgrade and the entrance to the off-street parking that is located over norway informational. >> if we say no stick to the 20 feet. >> their talking to the sponsor they'll share car share

with the blow parking garage. >> that will be more assessable easily assessable to the tenants but not the general public you want to respond to. >> this is a simple policy question as the retired board chair when we development the guidelines for developers for car share one of the main goals car share not just for different but available for the public at large in the neighborhood it as physical design challenge no other place to put a car if we skavent have the 9 feet curb cut it goes into the basement and everyone from the public that wants to assess the car has to go though the building it raise safety issues and makes that less assessable i wanted to remind the commissioners parking lots with linear down to one

curb cut zip code on whatever linear of curb cut that is a pedestrian victory i appreciate staffs position but the problem in this case the car share will suffer can a i ask you are there other two independent doors so if someone wants to get into the garage does the car share door go up. >> two separate doors if you're a resident you click in and the door to the ground garbage if you're a cars member you percipient witness our card and literally a single spot at grade on norway informationfoln >> i think there is a problem with accessibility and getting the public beyond living in the

building to use it car share okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm in favor of the curve cut as proposed for that the reasons stated by the gentleman this is a tricky situation and we've had many times to have to defense the thinking ratting indicate ways and taking out the design it will have little sixth in the internal alley their kwaifs as is a great project for reasons stayed eliminating the parking surface parking lot and satisfies the code questions in regards or in regard in the 17th century foot of retail for retail use which does not include the height of the

non-retail maybe, sir explain that one more time if you would to clarify because there is a bunch of things that the opponents sent us think a 3 feet and 5 foot height i don't understand what they're talking about. >> i can say a couple of things thank you commissioner antonini none of the folks there was this letter campaign the gentleman that was organizing refused to meet with us spit and constant e-mails what is unfortunate the opponents didn't look at the design this is a a project sponsor that loves to talk okay. i'll be delighted to offer them a coffee and sit down it is not rational to try to sit with a person that won't meet there is genuine confusion whether the eastern neighborhoods plan ma plan was

approved i was from and market octavia a big change was made in the city is a great one people noticed that 40, 50 6010 foot heights result in squashed ground floor i call is the 90s retail south of market those 5 story buildings nobody likes that i think the heart of that argument is coming from good people are saying hey when we rezoned to 65 or 45 he wanted that extra square foot to go to retail nothing that changed you can't do creative design by for example, doing 5 feet resolution commissioner antonini the good news the residential guidelines

of apartment they ground floor retail unit should be listed off the street from 5 feet right. i walk up and a lot into people's apartments they put up blinds and talk about an unfortunate streetscape i'd like to add this does 5 feet stoops the interesting thing that emerged with mark and the design folks what a great combination by raising the apartment 4 feet with a beautiful stoop 5 feetes vacationing vacation above and blow wla there was intended a great sign egging e merry-go-round there is it is great sometimes when there are specializes this is what happened and the legitimate

confirmation on the part of some the original intent if 60 to 64 to have bigger retail but by no means a resolution. >> that explains it clearly in my mind you've done everything in addition to the retail for the residential you are altogether ground floor change of 10 feet f it being 5 feet up to the stoop that is satisfies the letter of the law clelt recompletely and makes stoops higher and it provides the 5 foot stoop that clarifies the confusion as far as i am concerned. >> a couple of more things on the project the outreach the entertainment commission and the community is not able and the

large two bedroom unions a units and the sidewalks wooigd and fact we added 15 more units by the initiative planning 3 of which are affordable and $200,000 in impact fees it is and the footballs on site i think everything has been done extremely well and the open air 25 open air passages that breaks up the massing the building many say a suggestion for future architect that will take advantage to dlavent distinct buildings and use that space you've created for active uses it as wonderful project and i'm completely in support. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you

yeah, he agree it is great project as well a couple of quick questions on the t d m miles an hour there were discrepancies over what the department countered and it sounds like correct me if i am wrong it sounds like especially with the piece of ground the muni passes that we can't condition that today because the nexus study for me that is part of cd. >> correct in accomodation with the city attorney's office in the commission is inclined to incorporate that improvement measures within the project approvals that we provided additional findings that need to be to be bracket before the commission at a lafrnt. >> before i i get to my thoughts i read the cds and my

origin thoughts group housing so is that why we didn't do commissioners, that places you under president reports and announcements a nexus study and can you explain maybe you can talk about how group housing to sort of relay dwelling units to the regular projects when that happens. >> yes. i have two spate issues i'll address both tutor the question first, we were dual tracking we got excited about co-living shed spaces and having bedroom suits off of the large shared kitchen and dooifrng and living this is an amazing model we're interested in that but happened a board of supervisors member in response to the innovation imposed the

inclusionary requirements and the financing we didn't anticipate that that was not the law because of the new regulatory requirements our numbers for the group housing no longer worked we were concerned the ability to raise the funding to have a project although we love the group housing the co-living model we hope to do that on another site as another time we ban it to conventional marketed equity partners understand the apartment group housing is something new and scary in the ends the reason we let go of group housing we are couldn't find a financial partner to fund it in relation to the two t d m there was communication on the part of

your staff planning department staff and building staff as you may know you saw the testimony we're the first san francisco project to receive green trip certification we're proud and by the way, we think all the other future projects will do it somewhere in the cost they're not cheap wife agreed to fund the car share subsidized car membership for 40 years i don't know that of any developers that are doing it a list of t d m list though it made it to the staff and the environmental study turned into improvements measures it was concert to me as a land use attorney to see items highway patrol in the report to items we've not consent to and

frankly volunteer if you ask me in the abstract absolutely they cost a lot of money and for projects doing pushing the boundaries it is a obligation that we're concerned about in terms of the cost of this project so i'll repeat one-on-one bike parking and incredible walkable locations and subsidizing car share membership for thirty years that's a volunteery operation but i'll respect request that the commission consider removing the other t d m measurements it was not intentional on our part. >> come up and just reexplain how that works i don't think that the environmental conditions impose the volunteery measures can you explain that we

can have further mitigation so go ahead. >> correct. >> so within the environmental documents mitigation measures that are responses to impacts the project as improvement measures which are not associated with the c pe or the ceqa impact on the project but helped to reduce something that might be that is kind of reduce it a little bit more i'll defer to the city attorney for a better explanation that's my understanding of the improvement measures. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns just to add to what the gentleman said under ceqa in a project as a sixth impact by ceqa the city what a address the mitigation measures for the project the mitigation impacts

doesn't rise to the level of sentencing ceqa but any conditions of the approval that the commission encompassed on a project the commission can impose conditions if it finds the project will cause impacts of they're less than significant from the ceqa prospective, however, to do so because this is ad hoc meaning that one of mitigation measures the muni passes on a clirp card and staff is asking for mitigation those are not imposed from the commission were to impose them the commission has to adapt understanding the project is creating a level of impacts those conditions address and that the condition you know requires then for clipper cards and bike shares a progression

all mines the motion doesn't include those overwhelm recommend from the commission imposed the conditions on the project that continue the items for our office to craft draft the appropriate finding in enclosing oversee conditions. >> so the improvement measure for today, i walked into today hoping to make a decision based on when the project sponsor feels they can do and something in the middle but it sounds like especially on this up and down in terms of making a decision today okay. so clearly that is kind of one generously for us normally we see improvements measures that we are agreed beforehand so the substantial

difference is not an issue very much except for today i will just is generally speaking the reason why i felt strongly about this we have more inclusionary units than we're used to and you know as a policy in terms of keeping people in the city we want to find was not only to lower the housing costs but the cost of living and especially in the advisory committee of the fact there is support to have a categorizing more of a neighborhood may not money that has a 34ir7 can access is the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may for the building less demand for the one car i'm inclined to think strongly how w, we get creative around the clipper card with more bmr units

or c having some sort of approval that maybe con migrant on future finding i don't want to hold this up today this is an important piece we're going to have inclusionary housing and it didn't look like we, get out of project what we want to see. >> airbnb i didn't do you have your hand up. >> we're continues from the lovely heather several weeks ago i'll respectfully request the commission to finally hear the item generously that think there was a mistake on the miss confusion we've voluntary r as part of project description not even a measure we cover the

subsidize car share i don't know if it is lost you don't need to make finding we're proposing as part of project description it is important i want to recognize and your points are well-taken commissioner johnson it is all money when you're trying to do greening and eventually the christmas tree with so many ornlts falls over i respectfully ask this is a conversation to have had months ago this was a concern with that said, we think this as walkable bike friendly project i'd like to work with with this commission and more than happy most in advance to explore those topics. >> one second another i'll more often and real quick on the

open lane ways i would ask the project sponsor i know you guys are going for in kind agreement for eagle park that is fantastic but i'd like to ask whether or not you see a possibility of the open lane ways open to the public during the day and have them gatsdz but it makes sense but other projects that sort of openly open space that leads that to the public people can walk through. >> yes. and i think you're aware as you may know you're aware that certain parts of the block you need to do a public assessable alleyway this is a good policy those are voluntary not required to be open to the public with the neighbors completely different views oh, my god please don't open those

to the public they will be dangerous places and others said oh, hopefully one today open to the public i love that idea and what we're going to do is a look-see the idea of eagle plaza by way of might be calls eagle green to test drive our project when we're back with eagle plaza i look forward to i'll steel your thunder we've got the district that creates a special tax to permanently fund operations for the plaza if this is successful sxoks we've show public safety and we don't have problems then that is a possibility and i think everybody in the neighborhood likes that a lot see approach maybe those lane ways will

connect to norfolk. >> i agree with i i don't think we need to condition it today, we're building on the parking lot so a lot of the public safety issues that people are anticipating may happen will go away patricia because of plaza and partially because of fact they're building there so okay. >> we're all in alignment on that. >> okay. thank you. >> i'll think about the t z m and councilmember downey. >> let me ask staff about the height bonus so the mechanism for requesting the height bonus is in the western selma plan but not i took a quick read not tied to the bonus the retail space is it. >> they're two separate issues the retail space all of eastern

neighborhoods has a required ground floor ceiling heights for non-o non-residential uses so what the gentleman was referring to wards to the introduce of the 5 and 8 into the height districts that the eastern neighborhoods brought was if you were to do ground floor retail you basically are required to either have it be 14 feet or 17 feet formulation or for example, in the u district within western selma when we developed the western selma guidelines as a incentive to the large-scale developments they created split height zones and with the split height zoning district if you met that requirement you'll be allowed to build b build up to the height any development can

built up to 45 feet with the cu by the commission up to 65 but with the 65 and increased height a higher affordability for any residential project. >> partially for the fall out not tied to the ground floor in other district it is that way that's the confusion i'm fine with that sir if you could explain the car share the volunteery car share you're giving me is it free or is that subsidize or just the mile-per-hour and then individuals will pay for the rental time they do the car share. >> exactly if you're a member we hope you are we'll have - there's a (laughter) there is a monthly method of operation active charge like the cell phone it is for obviously the zip car there say, i know that city car share a $20 a month minimum and administrative

charge and the proposal we'll coffer that for any candidate that point that it eliminations the barrier to entry in terms of now, when you use car sharing you use a it and not during a given month so be it a way to get people to try and use it and save people money. >> i think i can be supportive of the project i you know if commissioner johnson has more thoughts on t d m i could be supportive with the car share alone. >> commissioner richards and a couple of additional points this project seats a great precedence in terms of the 5 feet creatively if this project comes with a 8 feet ceiling on the greater i'll not be foovm on it

we're not setting a precedence everything built to 55 feet is okay. not in my book the t d m is okay. a question for the project sponsor 32 plus units have you thought of louse us to allow you an additional space inside the building more the residents and a space if you give you is 29 feet for the rest of the neighborhood. >> we're totally open to that a great idea room in the garage the issue is having the only space buried in the ground intimidating for some people that's an interesting ideas. >> i like the idea of eagle plaza or eagle green and opening much the greenway and having

problems i'm guessing i'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the projects are additional car share space in the ground floor above the .5 for folks using it from the building up the 29 feet in the alley for the partial space for the rest of the neighborhood with the t d m to subsidize the car space free for residents and for the entertainment commission recommendation he building 116. >> whatever there was in the addendum we received i think this is it. >> anything else i'll open to a second or amendment. >> second. >> so commissioner richards just to clarify your motion and conditions you'll increase the car share from one to two and the 29 curve cut will be supportive by the commission and

the t d m the measure will be limited only to the car share, the providing the subsidize of the car share and eliminating the muni and the clipper and the passes and that you will incorporate and support the entertainment commission conditions of approval associated with the project. >> that's correct. >> is that okay with the seconder. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'm total no supportive as present this as the gentleman pointed out given choices of things to provide green parts of their project they choose i think the subsidize car share superior in my mind a lot people don't ride muni not because it costs two bucks but it takes so long to get across the city you'll keep

people out of their scars especially subsidize with the fee cost not really the cost but the quality of the transportation i'm very much in favor. >> commissioner johnson. >> so i'll be supportive of it basically because i think i believe this is the citywide policy which i'll total push for or you're going to have improvements policies this is a nice you measure i'll say in terms of the muni if people have clipper cards especially, if you're in inclusionary housing or affordable housing you'll be more likely to use that is one reason it should be a citywide policy and once again i hope you guys look at keeping our open

lanes on this is what eagle plaza is. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there is a there is a motion and a second to approve that project with conditions to include an additional car share in the building, support informative the 29 curve kit for public car share space and is transportation improvement measure subsidizing the membership for tenants and incorporating the entertainment's conditions commissioner antonini supervisors commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that place us on item 7 for case loma bad street. >> commissioner antonini i'll ask for recall i'm partial owner of a property within

nine-hundred feet of proposed project. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to recuse commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> you can do it later. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm mary woods of department staff the the item before you for consideration involves the demolition of a two unit residential building and the construction of a 13 unit residential and commercial on the empowering mixed use development the project proposes 9 off-street parking and 17 bilk spaces departments recommendation is for approval of the project since last thursday commission

package submittal staff receives an e-mail from an neighbor that was expressing concerns of construction activities at the sites this concludes my summary of the project i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor please. and good afternoon, commissioners stu for on behalf of the project sponsor the group as ms. woods described it is a demolition of a two unit building situated at the rear the property and new construction of a mixed use building both of the existing units are vacant at this time the original proposal for a 9 unit for the zoning density but because it was less than 10 units not contained inclusionary units to- with staffs help to

increase the benefits to 13 units by using the indents so for the c-3 we are proposing to provide two onsite inclusionary units this plan replaces two permanently affordable bmr units plus 9 additional market-rate units the project meets the criteria of the section but the commission must consider for information of two dwelling units including more units and more new bedrooms in the project and two affordable units for the demolished rent-controlled unit the parking garage was not expand and holds bill clinton space it requires an exception for less than one by one parking all are principally permitted

and last day or two we've heard interest from commissioners providing one more onsite inclusionary units for that a total of two bmr units to replace the below-market-rate we've stated to that and willing to make that change by increasing the unit from 13 unit to 14 units with the 3 bmr units onsite and 11 market-rate housing that is up to a 21 inclusionary percentage we and staff have determined the section 207 of the planning codes a new section that supervisor wiener introduced and adapted a year ago will permit that one additional unit would the renoticing and a continuance section 207 of the planning code allows projects that have 20

percent or more inclusionary units to not count against the indented 0 we could bring this to a 14 unit project with 3 inclusionary units and willing to make that change today, we'll present a 14 unit project and by converting one, two bedrooms with that, mr. loving will present the project. >> i'm having a little bit of difficulty with the slide show on the power points trying to get a full image here i'll stick

with this again commissioner president fong and commissioners michael las vegas i did levitt architecture we've approached that as an opportunity to create an in fill building modest no scale with an architecture presence republicans we feel this is accomplished there the use of materials and building elements as a piece of lombardi corridor an tension of 101 to the north the building will be part of escape for thousands ever people entering the city everyday the site is near the eastern part of the 101 turns south and becomes van ness avenue this is the scale of the building you can see the large blank wall of the molt building immediately west of the site the existing two unit building

extends to a few feet of the rear property line in this image and as indicates on the existing site plan the area in front the building a paved driveway and adjacent is a paved vacant lot here as you can see the driveway and vacant lot as well as the large blanket wall of the neighboring molt it is used a kind of de facto billboard there is little to engage for the pedestrian the promoted building willfully engage the situation strengthening the lombardi street at the rear of the lot the new setback space alone contiguous with neighboring rear yards as we envision the building the

pedestrian experience will feel appropriately urban with the building entry entered directly from the sidewalk and ground level a general will i will be welcoming the residents and create a social plays while vehicular and others will be tucked away from the street. >> at the second level the rear levels open within a 10 by 15 foot planter providing a buffer fine between the decks of the rear yard and it will utility rain waste and k45e7b8d by a series of open passages creating a visible and tactical experience of rape water in the

project. >> there will be rainwater collection from the higher roof levels from the penthouses that will be used to water the plants within the project. >> as described the architecture of the building will be part of face of lombardi street strengthening the experience of superintendant guerrero the city from the east as well as leaving the city heading west the finished side of the wall facing est will be treated with the same care as the main building facade. >> utility oil materials the strength of the building in part

is based on this materiality the materials conveying a sense of prms brick and steel and stoop alluded to helpful presence in entering the city as you cross the golden gate bridge and drive to the presidio it conveys a facade arrangement within those bays a semi tree arrangement give it movement and richness lastly we wanted to consider the effect of the buildings throughout the day as lombardi street is experienced in the evening and into the night the building that utilize the subtle lighting at the roof level to create a dmroeg lantern effect thank you and let me know if

there are any questions. >> thank you. >> go ahead and open up for public comment (calling names). >> i'm sorry that's from the previous - >> it is any public comment on this item any public comment on that item? thank you jonas public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards and thank you very much i will was briefly skefrndz or concerned about the demolishing the rent-controlled unit i appreciated your team and ms. woods your desire to be creating an additional affordable unit that helps me get this over the like that the design is a great i'm happy less parking it's a winner and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner johnson. >> yes. i appreciate the

project sponsor adding the additional bmr unit and looking at the plans given to us today can quay summarize again how many one bedroom and two bedrooms were getting and is the parking remaining the same or now calculating it to 14. >> the parking will remain at 9 parking spaces we've added an additional bicycle 14 parking one to one. >> okay. then for the unit mixed count. >> united states unit mixed will be 13 two beds and one 13 unit. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. i'll move to approve. >> second. >> i'll not you were the one that were going to make more two bedrooms in hayes valley were you the.

>> it's on south van ness. >> okay. >> i mean unless we're getting we want to make it clearing clear i would have within outlook with the two rent-controlled units for two bmr's worked for me, i appreciate the third bmr unit we lose the two bedroom i go back to the fast frachls thinking we need more inclusionary onsite so we should look at this and this issue of the loss of rent control maybe get a little bit more consistent and try to get direction to the board at some point to help us with legislative direction when we were were reaching rent-controlled unit this is the first one with the bmr units i appreciate that. >> commissioner johnson.

>> yeah. directly to commissioner hillis i was stuttering i was mentally wondering if i should bring that up when commissioner richards talked to the project sponsor about adding additional bmr units the idea we're replacing the rent-controlled unit but if we are building a brand new building go up and beyond and not know though to execute that i'll be on the side of preferring to see more larger unit sizes or bedroom count but i think this is i guess a fair compromise for now obviously the project sponsor difficult work and over the course if i had the choice keep a few bedrooms and add an additional one not get into the weeds with this project. >> commissioner richards and

the difference they were on ground fuel here we are with a rent-controlled unit the mental accounting you take the two you've knocked down long term affordable in 10 or 20 years an 8 thousand rent unit b will be library a loaf of bread like 11 units get an additional units the creativity worked maybe a one of case we like it but the trade off works really well. >> commissioner wu. >> i just want to echo that policymaking the question of replacing the rent-controlled units with the inclusionary was burglary replacement but an inclusionary obligation i know it is bmr units are not the same as rent control they're more generous i appreciate the ability to do the inclusionary and do the replacement on top of

it. >> could you call the question, please. >> absolutely commissioners on the motion to approve commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner wu pr commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero commissioners that place you under our discretionary review calendar on item 8 at fulsome street this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioner president fong omar planner the proposal before you a request for collectively of clef for a micro telecommunication facilities for verizon wireless on fulsome street the project is a 3 story mixed use building featuring residents above retail and reluctance use on the ground

floor the proposed micro facility commodities of 3 components the first within a single 18 inch pipe at the northeast corner the roof and four comploeshz and computers and batteries within a grant about the size of a register at the stairwell the micro is different than macro their smaller in terms of equipment and misrepresents they have lower frequent emissions this is has an macro of 10 thousand waits per micro facilities are approved the building permit application preceded by a letter of determination by the deserve as a accessory use they're not accessory established by the

guidelines that are the developments wlieb single-family homes the micro unlike macro didn't require it before the planning department planning commission a notice to neighborhood within 5 hundred feet and the micro do need to more capacity gap as a result of question of and widespread community concern a previous project sponsor t mobile removed the equipment as well as a location an guerrero street with a moratorium in essence they come brown before the planning commission and the board choose not to pursue a moratorium and adams language to section 311 and 12 the wireless are approved as a accessory eye required to

conform with neighborhood requirements so from the dr requester and other communities member for the citywide nature the safety of the batteries interest over the house one thousand in san francisco they feature batteries to provide back up power for communications many have between to hundred gallons of, etc. illicit solutions 7 gallons within a ground mount enhancing cabinet that features batteries for the - the fire department has not seen a pattern since 1996 another concern as to whether? here on behalf of the appellant micro falls as noted have a limited range compared to macro the project sponsor looked at

the university of san francisco campus as well as sites at the john m. city college and the lucky supermarket at the corner of fulsome and mosaic those sites are not available on balance the micro facilities providing less intrusive for wireless capability within our mixed use neighborhood commercial districts especially, when compared to large antennas and larger cabinets fully fair to widen light poles within the public right-of-way e.r. enclosures with their cooling fans a few feet from a bedroom windows in conclusion the promoted project didn't not demonstrate any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances so not take discretionary review and allow the project to pass.

>> dr requester. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is henry tilly chang as those of you who are on the commission in 2007 may recall the appearance of skauldz wireless facilities on the rooftops of residential building across the city have been some prevalence that all 11 members of the board of supervisors co-sponsored legislation calling for a citywide moratorium on their installations one of those micro cells was installed on fulsome street the same building that is subject of today's here and the building next door to where my wife and i live as part of negotiation with

the board of supervisors that the board of supervisors entered into with the wireless carriers the planning department, the neighborhood residents regarding the moratorium and an agreement was reached that included voluntary removal of micro facilities only fulsome street and another similar facility in the mission district was a first and only time already installed wireless facilities were removed by a wireless carrier in respond to residents objection two things should be nufldz with respect to this 2007 agreement first neighborhood residents overwhelmsly observed objected to the micro facility at this location and the brown acting on behalf of the city agreed with the residents the board did see any making the abandonment of his moratorium

contingent upon the removal of the micro facility on fulsome and second the residents didn't simply object to the t mobile wireless at the hat site but the objection of any wireless facility thus when the unprecedented action was taking the wireless carrier removing the facility from 1801 full name street the residents were confident that the 2014 o 2007 agreement reached by the board of supervisors would be honored with or without times limitations so, now 8 years later another wireless carrier was presented by the same attorneys who represented t mobile in the 2007 negotiations with the board of supervisors is seeking so install a visually

identical micro facility at this location i'm here on behalf of of the neighborhoods to honor both the letter and the spirit of board of supervisors 2007 agreement reached on behalf of the city and vote against a permit for its approve that is warranted by the extraordinarily circumstances with the history micro facilities made vevent by the 2007 agreement in addition that verizon facility didn't meet the various planning code criteria for its approve the facility is not necessary for residents nor for verizon it is inappropriate for a mixed use apartment building and fails to meet articles 7 a

permissible public use furthermore, should the planning commission approve verizon's micro facility 1801 fulsome street will jump from a preference 6 location under the city w t s guidelines the second lowest preference location to preference 2 co-location for the second highest preference location the result whereby that any and all wireless carriers will be permitted to target this building as a site for their wireless facilities be they micro or macro cells the precise option from the one combined enlightened compiled by the board of supervisors in 2007 when the applicants signal strength into the facilities are compared to the industry scale from the industrial solutions and i will pass those two it is

clear that verizon is miss stating its need for the facilities at this location he therefore rvrptd request you take discretionary review and deny verizon a permits for this location thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll call speakers in support of dr request (calling names). >> good afternoon commissioners i live in this building for 126 years. >> speak up, please. >> speak into the microphone. >> i live in this building for 167 years in 2007 the board of supervisors made the t mobile remove the antenna from the roof of our building and after that

antenna was removed our landlord - because he would no longer being receiving money as out of this issue t mobile applied for the new permit in 2009 and about it because - we t mobile had agreed to put the antenna on our building i came before the commissioners but hearing because t mobile never followed the through it's i application we believe this is because t mobile decided to honor the 2007 agreement with the about the building.

>> sorry. >> i can tell you what 2007 when we thought the city didn't want antennas on our building we were not just saying we don't want t mobile antennas on your building question don't want any antennas on our building the board of supervisors agreed with us and we think what you should agree with us please do not allow antennas on our building. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is user in his louie building that the city should honor it's agreements with the residents who represents and not permit wireless facilities of any kind to be located at 1801 fulsome

street in addition the planning code provides us with amble reason to deny a permit for verizons facility to quality as an accessory use verizon's antenna must be proven to be necessary however, the evidence verizon has provided to establish the need for this facility is misleading and factually in accurate bans the industry standards for the all of a sudden f g e network developing is building cross san francisco according to verizon's color coded map of l the course of this trial e red represents poor

minus one 10 d b m, however, as you can see from the documents previously handed you from the wireless industry source the industrial working solutions the industry standard for poor signaling is not minus one 10 d b m but minus one with 20 d b m moreover according to the same document any signal above that is considered excellent which means according to verizon's map the signal strength for most of the area this micro it, all right. excellent with the remaining areas good or fair clearly verizon is marketplaces tests conditions in an attempt

to approve the needs for a micro cell at this location where none exists therefore i ask you to vote to deny verizon a permit thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors aim gene as you may know your principled by federal law to gun the wireless facility the facility meets standards for radio radiation at the same time if a wireless facility didn't meet the federal standard you can deny a permit a photo of building co-authors to verizon's application the promoted antenna

will be installed 6 feet from the edge of the rooftop the housing element supports submitted by verizon and reviewed by the public health department provides calculated r f measurements for the areas and includes they'll not be- the r f report limits will be exceeded up to 34 feet out from the antenna and to much distances above and blow unquote it is a residential apartment building the corner apartment located from the promoted antenna is well within the 34 feet in which the fte standards will be exceeded and the distance can be expected to be much less than blow the antennas they not had

an grocery employment and therefore can't conclude the limits will not be there it had been put on hold night housing element and verizon look at the standards of public health department i ask you to deny this location for 1801 fulsome street. >> thank you. next speaker. and. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john joan wood from another part of town north beach we're under a similar attack by verizon it seems like 25 new cell phone enhancements rlsz were approved. >> you russian hill i think it

is time for the planning commission to start thinking about taking a position on increasing cell phone enhancements the city should also honor hits it agreement with the residents of this particular residents open 1801 fulsome street and not permit the wireless facilities in this building as you're aware the city's decision about the wireless facility in san francisco have subject to certain conditions under subtly you not discriminate the wireless carriers in this case the record show the city says t mobile should have a microsoft wireless facility should you permit verizon to install what is an identical wireless

facility at this location the city will, discriminating against t mobile that dismantling this construction when this happens it was 7 years ago in favor eucalyptus you'll be discriminating in favor of verizon ms. unprishlt with you subtly you've got to be whatsoever not to step over the enclosures from the 1996 law please don't over step our law and voted to deny 24 permit for verizon in this case thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> how much time. >> 3 minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is doug as someone

personally involved in the negotiations related related to the moratorium in 2007 i concur that the city should honor it's agreement with the community and to keep microsoft facility off this facility and not approve that facility at the location last night at the board of appeals 6 verizon cases 5 were out right denied the 6 was continued because of deefficient notice issues about was clear from the commissioners discussions that with the possible exception of the commission president all the commissioners were generously synthetic with the residents that are being faced with that encroachment of the buildings he neighborhoods throughout the city i'll say that those decisions dealt with antennas on public right of ways as the

gentleman previously referred to which and the board of appeals is under a much more narrow constraint what we can and cannot do you have a broader discrimination the language in the planning code and the necessity predicaments and the offer riding issue little 2007 agreement that the board of supervisors on behalf of the city with the residents and the wireless carriers that said no wireless facilities at this location now with regards to alternative sites the gentleman said in his executive summaries ghetto quote the proposed micro is less intrusive than wireless facilities mount to wireless poles the gentleman is overseeing and facilitating 4

hundred light and - in residential district across the city the gentleman states that the micro facility is generally less intrusive the question- he begs the question what is intrusive for whom the question not in his opinion but the ninth circuit of appeals versus the city and county of san francisco and here the standard is quote the best solution for the community unquote not the best solution for verizon or the planning department in this case, the community that clear for the past 8 years a marcus books cell on the roof is not the best solution unquote. >> any more public comment in support of dr? >> okay project sponsor.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm baldwin deep the project sponsor for this project verizon wireless i want to thank the gentleman on this project for working hard and the dr requesters that bought up issues i'll be happy to address a few items we want to bring up first was the agreement that was made between public officials and t mobile and the public in general it says a although i'm sure that took place i haven't found documents to speak to this or subsidy i cannot it is difficult to assess not much to review

my point since no documents to substantiate that this must have been non-binding and also it seems to exclusively refer to t mobile and no other carrier i believe was notified they can't look at their facility at this location when the permits was applied to restriction i believe there's my basis to deny this application there is a few concerns that came up stating that the project does not meet the criteria of the planning code i worked with the planner and owner for several months i believe he would have informed me if it didn't meet the planning code the issue came up there is evidence of the facility not no evidence the facility needed to

provide coverage i'm not an engineer can't say about the coverage but only the map to show there is coverage needs and the issue of the r f report the exposure needs the standards we have a report provided by the engineers and reviewed by the department of public health and approved also in terms of aesthetic concerns we've worked with several months that the planner to create the least intrusive design and also want to mention that micro cell and matt haney the sculpt and the equipment is smaller it was determined by the

zoning administrator that was qualified to make such an assessment so i'm basically saying i understand the code they've done their due diligence and come up with the policies we've followed there the issue came up it was said that the city determined that t mobile shouldn't locate this facility but i don't think this is true they pulled out in conclusion, this project should not think depends based on the subject agreement with the public officials and the residents but should be cited on based on the merits inherit of the project itself thank you and i'm open to any questions.

>> thank you. any public comment in support of project sponsor? >> good evening commissioners and peter here in support of lymph glands i work for him the gentleman said what was true t mobile pulled out didn't want to deal with the city no antenna there they especially\have to disassembly anything we want to do the best we can for some reason it is not safe it not if that's the case we would like to precede thank you for listening. >> any more speakers in support of project manager

okay public comment oh, sorry the dr requester has a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. president, absolutely the bill - the motorcycle soft tower was built at that location and torn down the only speaker in favor of the project has a financial interest that works for the landlord that makes a lot of money from the rental if it is significant that people the project sponsor does what have living intimate this they're not here

the comment that the agreement applies only to t mobile is absent short-sighted and not taking into consideration it opens the city it claims of discrimination the dependence on them to point the applicants in the right direction falls short the gentleman was also for the present was not working with the planning commission or the planning department back in 2007 with regards to the need let me reemphasis that there is no net for this antenna my my wife and i have had verizon service where we live for more than two years we directed it because of price not

because of poor service we have terrific reception there are 9 units in that building 8 are occupied one is vacant we talked to 4 residents agreed this they were opted . >> your time is up. >> thinking outside the box a two minute rebuttal. >> the comment before the i see it it that project explicit go through doesn't mean this project should not be approved it should be based the merits of the project itself that's all. >> public comment is closed. and opening 80 up to commissioners and commissioner

antonini. >> yeah. maybe you can give us a hefty of denial of 2007 if you have that what was the reason for it and why is it extraordinary every installation we've seen since 2007. >> it didn't appear a denial from the department but the carrier representative provided a letter to the city and to the board of supervisors saying they will voluntarily withdraw the project a second discretionary review in 2009 when t mobile time to build but the project was abandoned they didn't continue to work with the believable you think a dr my memory a is not good i he was part of planning commission that particular site we took dr and didn't approve that is that what

you're saying or appealed to the board of supervisors that denied it. >> my understanding and follow-up no dr was taken but those projects are not appealed to the board of supervisors. >> yeah, that would be the board of appeals. >> the thousand the board of supervisors were involved. >> there were tons of micro facilities coming out without neighborhood notification we didn't have a process to let the residents know about the pending building application the board of supervisors looked to put a moratorium in place all plaza places should come brown the planning department and it appears that t mobile held off submitting building permit and withdraws two facilities and hope the board will not pursue a moratorium. >> i remember that i remember the time we didn't dr. to go

through drs only the michael facilities but there was a concern by the supervisors they decided to take the action so it never really came before us not a dr as far i see. >> i'll have to check. >> it sounds like i remember that period of time and there was this concern that they should upgrade those facilities to the same standards that were held for the macro facilities the claim that we are treating two kaiser or carriers definitely samuels it doesn't make sense that was the board of supervisors a moratorium that covered everyone this is talking about a particular installation no reason why t mobile couldn't come back and come before us for a dr if they choose to put an antenna thank you for your

information federal and state this is the way i see it and my memory certainly there was no dr it was taken up by the supervisors but i have few more comments on this facility yeah i don't really see the validity the other thing the question on r f emissions smell the residents any restaurant eir residents can ask the project sponsor to test a particular units prior to installation to assure that it didn't exceed the f r limits. >> that's correct one of the few counties that has a dedicated person that has the calculated meter for testing for residents on dwelling units when we did tests underneath where they're living blow the antenna

a oftentimes in the exposure levels from the operating system at or around one percent of the exposure standard. >> it seems to me we will approve this installation not take doctor and if for some reason there was discovered interest were excess r f emissions at that particular site the project couldn't go through anyway, that's one of the conditions that has to be met i don't think that is an issue for me so, yeah i'm in support i don't see any concerns i don't understand it is a small installations doesn't change the aesthetics of the building i had to look twice to see the difference when we put that stovepipe to the top to coffer it is a holding a small amount of back up material in case it

goes out i'm going to move to not take dr and approve the project. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess a couple of questions what makes that building special i've been here a year and month we've had five or six of these who is going on what's the issue and primarily around the history in terms of the function of the building we've approved micro facilities on buildings of this size and smaller macro. >> your understanding the issue in 2007 was what a health issue or didn't want it. >> it was a combination of health and community concern recommending to seeing a wave as retained said a wave of metabolic no dialogue.

>> what has changed and every micro facility a letter goes out with a copy of the plan thirty days from the notification periods ends the residents can contact us and for pushing and so on. >> the 2007 agreement is commonplace just a request happens all over the city. >> we've approved a bunch of sites for verizon wireless. >> one says one 10 and 20 signal can you comment maybe the project sponsor hey this works now why an antenna questioning the numbers. >> we don't require to determine to see the coverage or capacity gap allison park defer to the project sponsor i i don't

believe generally voiced those sites meet data speaks and the driven is towards smaller power sites as opposed to higher power macro sites you're trying to restrict the signal and you're not yelling over each other, if you will, you have less interference in the need not. >> one other questions measurement that is lacking here did the person suggest a continuous. >> r f engineers they're looking at when also the cumulative exposure level at maximum capacity what's the worse case scenario and a ground level exterminating estimate and if you're in a straight line the direct level the antenna how far do you need to stand away in

order to be out of distance which you'll have r f levels that steady and addition what are the near the assessable areas where public can stands they'll take into account whether a bump flow or decks and balconies and determine if those present a concern it innovate uncommon for one site on one rooftop and ask them put striping on the rooftop in order to make sure you restrict access to an exposure level for the public. >> in this case what's the situation. >> no public assessable areas where where the public stands that will steendz the limits established and one question for the dr requester

thank you for coming up so commissioner what is the issue here i know we've had that 2007 agreement a process and actually safe help me here on the issues. >> i'd like to speak a little bit in regards to the safety the gentleman talked about the public in the case of this building the public lives in the building not on the sidewalk i think there is a fair number of residents who are consistently imposes to a level of radiation that exceeds the fcc standards within 32 feet that is one issue the second issue i don't see any need whatsoever and i'm very

concerned that this building becomes a mountain farm for all the wireless kaiser or carriers because it drops the preferences to make it easy essentially those are the issues. >> thank you. appreciate that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i'm going to go ahead and second commissioner antonini's motion the reason example a few reasons i won't go through all the points last year a rave of dr around macro and micro facilities because of those we had a multiple carriers verizon's was chief among them and at&t at various times came up and representatives brought along with them go through the issues point by point we're hearing similar arguments so i won't go through some of those i'll support the motion number

one i totally understand the issue of the preference going higher for this building if you were to have i mean - i understand the issue but one i don't think it works first a micro not a macro we have at process for that and the second piece even if their preference was a macro facility and stand sir, tell me how wrong the landlords or whoever controls the land new sir, tell me how wrong i am. >> you're more correct than you think commissioner johnson. >> the 2003 guidelines specifically mind if you develop a micro facility not a basis to say oh, a preference to co-location if allocate carrier

wants to come in with a macro facility equivalent they'll have to come through the planning commission. >> thank you. i corrected myself and the micro and macro are different of there this was a macro facility i believe the landlords of they have a micro facility the landlords has to agree to have on the carriers and future reviews in the future on that point i see the sentiment but can't agree in this case i believe that you know we talked about you know people saying i don't need the storage i think the commission has been bed-and-breakfast think why different carriers need facilities in different areas

because you have four bars on your phone that is not proper coverage so i got 4 bars on any phone i don't see a need that's not how it works in the 2007 agreement piece i read that carefully i was confused for a while but it smells a period of lots of commotion around those types of facilities we if have the process we have now there was the seemed like sentiment from the board of supervisors one create a moratorium and specific in this case having a negotiation of t mobile i don't read that as sort of an agreement or moratorium placed on this specific property i don't know if they could have legally done that and certainly don't see that it preincludes us looking at future facilities in

terms of those in the audience that are concerned perhaps not going to the board of supervisors and talking about why don't public sites library community college allowed to say they don't want those facilities 0 a on their campus i don't know why they say no, unfortunately that's not the system i maintain commissioner antonini's motion thank you. >> scompln. >> yeah. a couple of follows up the coverage maps clearly shows that is perfectly sites a micro facility between two or three other fairly large antennas that is just the right size to not interfere with the signals of those facilities and this need is going to get greater people noses never come out of those

cell phones or whatever they have those days and don't even hear people around or it will get worse when you are watching a movie it pulls oath juice so it is a wave the future i'm sorry to hear that overwhelm a flip phone myself you've got to be realistic about what is happening today and as far as is the r f emissions 34 feet within the same hypothetical when you move the r f is demolished i'll expect that a few feet away from the vertical direction will though if you r f but if it there are concerns have the city come out and check and make sure the r f emissions are within

that so i'm supportive of the motion. >> commissioner richards one last question servicing i live in the apartment directly blow what's in a exposure. >> i can't guarantee we've seen a range of 1 to 3 of the - percent of standard. >> commissioners another motion to not take dr commissioner antonini commissioner hillis per commissioner johnson commissioner richards and commissioner wu and commissioner wong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes national anthem 6 to zero for the benefit the public item 9 and 11 have been withdrawn commissioners on item 10 dr p online street a request for discretionary review.

>> good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the public of the commission the item before you a request for discretionary review of a proposal at 2720 lion street between filbert. >> union street it is proposal of a penthouse elevator and staircase and landing and a 3 feet roof deck at the thifrt it is sobriety 24 feet and 3 feet from the rear building and all positions are constructed the dr requester has the following concerns the loss of profess by people on the proposed roof deck looking through skylights and from the proposed rear balcony that face the subject property the size of the roof deck and penthouse and proposed may not are not characteristic of the

neighborhood, that the penthouse will compromise light and privacy forevers the adjacent of the south part and that the proposal sets a precedent of the cal hallow association the residential design team determined that to be - they found the project to be in line with the guidelines this is no unusual loss of either decks and the skylights are not addressed in with the residential guidelines the promoted roof deck is set back 24 feet from the front building inspection and 3 feet if the rear wall and the penthouse is 28 feet from the rear - as the walls the penthouse are patricia constructed of glass

the transparent wind-screen will not be in conflict with the neighborhoods the wind-screen is if the solid waltz u walls with minimum transparent screen the penthouse will not cast shade american people the adjacent building to the south not projecting into the department of the court and on the north side of the court at this time the department remedies no discretionary review does not have cpmc i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay dr requester please. and just to be clear over team has 5 minutes to present. >> wow. it is starting obituary okay

- okay. commissioner president fong and commissioners thank you for hearing the cal hallow neighborhood on the 2720 lion street it directly impacts the privacy and light and sets a precedent in the change of the neighborhoods i'm a mother find two data purchaser and a first grader a wonderful supporter of a husband san francisco is our home we're committed to raising our family the character is amazing and the community incredible like a village in a big city let's talk about the project briefly the sponsors proposing a 6

hundred and 50 square feet roof deck with a opinionated and an elevator and spiral landing an 8 (off the record.) foot high screen and the parapet is 18 inches and topped with 69 windows of glass gene and a built in kitchen and sink and register here's the plans views that is the view from the front it will be approximately 35 feet to the 15 inch increased height and it will be 44 feet to the top of penthouse this is the plan view from the back you can see the building is turn around both buildings on the either side by over a floor if approved that project will

change the cal hallow neighborhoods forever there is no alternative to elevator assess like a motorized lift this is a picture lessor from alliance street the street is garnishes will i sloped roof and then oh, this is a picture you'll see the penthouse and wind-screens and this one here you can see if you approve that roof deck what we anticipate the whole neighborhood looks like essentially our approving the roof deck for this like if you approve that roof deck here's the back view of the way the houses look from the exterior and the way it will look with the new roof deck on top of and if you approve that this will be

the way it looks for everyone to have one. >> okay. this is the one near and dear to my heart basically this penthouse look directly into my 6 years old daughters by the time bedroom we want to have time to picking up put the picture up oh, that's good it looks directly into any 6 years old daughters bedroom whether you stands other than the roof the person is standing right here that is the window; right? this is a picture of my husband standing in here place and a picture that she'll look at looking at the person standing other than the roof deck the kitchen and sink is right over

here room a guest a friend washes their dish and look at the sunset their eyes whether glaze into my daughters bedroom as she's getting readies for beds it's the other persons eyes directly into the site. >> okay we've come to we've made a proposal and we made it in june we have been our asks that simple were asking for eliminations of the penthouse and to use a motorized lifter for the roof and reduce the height of the wind-screens to 42 inches the language for everyone to get up here he please introduce where you live on the block and

why this matter to you. >> thank you your time is up. >> now calling the speakers 90 in support of doctor request colleagues, any questions or comments? >> if you guys want to line up on this side of the room you can cue up (calling names) basically everyone in the room. (laughter) >> go ahead. >> go ahead. >> good afternoon. i'm cindy co-chair the cal hallow association committee a fourth-generation residents of cal hallow my colleagues on the zoning

committee attended the meeting in 2014 the zoning committee submitted a collecting check list to zoning as decision it was less productive the cal hallow association asked to assist a 3450egs between the project sponsor and the impacted neighbors that includes two neighbors an union street and our role what a meeting with the impacted neighbors and presenting a matrix of the concerns to the project sponsor and the architect to rise the project accordingly the cal hallow association facilitated a rooftop meeting with the two joining neighbors after seven months finding american people architectural impose the deadline approach we didn't reach a resolution the

zoning committee submitted our letter proposing the roof deck that impacts the air and light and view and impacted public folks from the presidio in our initial letter to planning in our discusses with all parties we've provided an example of a capable and harmonious project in cal hallow that is located on 2735 dash 27 barker street that was before the planning commission and included a daylight staircase from the upper living level a coincide compliant glass we recommend you take dr online street and rise the plan eliminate the penthouse and replace with a day lighted

upper living place to the roof and set the roof deck and railings 3 feet back from the north side property lines and relocation those away from the north side property line and lower the wind-screens from 89 feet to 42 inches move eliminate or fire rate the two proposed skylights within the south 3 foot setback to eliminate the parapet tshz and my colleague brook is here and will speak about the barker roof deck addition >> commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm brook samson serve on the cal hallow

association for 2725 came before the planning commission in 2012 and going on june 14th the man placing plan was mary woods they considered the completed blueprint for other roof deck in cal hallow if we can have a look at here at the let me get this orientation. >> this parcel map shows the subject property today 2720 lion 1, 2, 3 in from the corner and the roof deck project i'm talking about 27 three 7 is 1, 2, 3, 4 from the corner the initially a secret roof deck with a day lighted staircase

after staff reviewed the roof deck was reduced to 4 hundreds and 62 and 4 hundred and 45 is interrupted the privacy and adams more massing when they filed the dr at the may 10th planning commission commissioner moore expressed great concerns code compliant is one thing but i believe that the decks create a form of unit expectation that has to have a common category not to untrud to have those kinds of decks commissioner antonini stated i'd like to see that upper deck cut down to three hundred and 50 square feet a request of the dr applicant just before the june hearing the roof deck was agreed

to by all parties three hundred and 35 square feet footprint that's the entire roof deck edge to edge including the barbecue and roof deck the barbecue, walkway staircase leading to the next living 11 matching light court setback setback setback fire rates excuse me. 3 foot size setback that allows the skylights to be at the 3 feet line we understand that 2720 lion street proposed roof deck has approximately three hundred plus footprint again, the entire structure three hundred and 83 is the usual space

thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> thank you. >> my name is malcolm cove moan i'm on the zoning committee for the cal hallow association to summarize the cal hallow association is against this project for 3 reasons i call them the 3 p penthouse, an 8 foot's protrusion to have a elevators that impacts the roofline the precedence if this project is approved it sets a bad precedence left side to other roof deck with elevators in the neighborhood that impacts the roofline pattern the neighborhoods privacy a roof deck of this size will naturally be used for

entertainment people will peer into the neighborhoods window and skylights thus impacting the profess of those neighborhoods tattoos immediate north and south thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm square feet hoops i live 5 house away an union street i've lived interest more thirty years we are useable to mediate seldom have to come for a dr that is a key project in permitted that will change our neighborhood forever i have a petition i think you've seen it everybody online street has signed this petition their strongly opposed to the roof deck and to the elevator housing

to put elevator housing 10 feet higher than the roofline and 8 to 10 foot winds screens is really against the character of our neighborhood just about 36 months ago your commission passed a project where the can was about the same the wind genes were reduced to 42 inches and no elevators and the house was built that way i think of several commissioners came to any home and seen that project and we're comfortable with that. >> but to go 10 feet above for a penthouse is not within the character of the cal hallow neighborhood it scares us thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm sorry leslie dickey a fifth generation san franciscan lived ♪ neighborhoods for 25 years and two doors down from the project for 17 years i agree with everything that is said i said to add that when we are remodeled our home 17 years ago we sobriety how house to the south to accommodate the next door neighbors view and removed the fire place, etc. our block has a history of compromise and reasonable development when the sponsors put up their story poles how large we know that san francisco becomes quickly non-transparent the proposed 8

foot screens were not detailed and not the story poles will make the 4 story stand out more, more important we raised our two children on this quiet lovely block i can't imagine having the story over their beds he notice my children go to bed and not subject to outdoor taken place this is a beautiful home with a generous large pool and a raised deck off the kitchen for plenty of space for outdoor dining and entertaining i ask you not allow this to be not allow this to be added to how street thank you for your time >> my name is jill i live on

27 lion streets we have 5 children we love our home our house was built over hundreds years ago in 1913 on the corner of lion and under the circumstances, we added a deck we didn't add a fourth story the model is wrong the fourth floor was adams decades ago we added a roof deck and expanded an exist deck my neighbors contacted me about concerns of the impacts on the neighborhoods and their privacy we talked neighbor to neighbor and agreed to sobriety the releasing more 5 feet from the property line and added a planter outside our railings we did see without ac money and friendly today didn't adds wind-screens but added 42 inch

handrails the bear minimum when we go out on the roof we experience the weather if it is windy we put on a coat we respected the character the neighborhood and the privacy of neighbors i want to say a word 8 foot screen walls are only on earth plans in reality the wind-screens can be seen because of wind and the dust and dirt their o pack in the stucco walls pictures in the packet that show you scombaek e sgaek what i mean on page 15 here's here it is. >> the home is up towards the top of the block and come rain

or shine it is not consistent with the rooflines the penthouse is out of character with the rooflines that voirlts the cal hallow guidelines in conclusion we all well aware of how rapidly san francisco neighborhoods are changing we need to be mindful not to ruin the neighbors the cal hallow associations worked two hard i know you have a difficult job but all i ask you please consider the cal hallow guidelines over the winds screens thank you for san francisco and hearing us out. >> good afternoon, commissioners james a jen in my.

>> he wife sgefrn jennifer live online streets for 44 years before getting into my prepared comments i want to endorse the two ladies from me leslie decking i didn't speaking about the young children we have young grandchildren and spends a great deal of time because my daughter and son they stay at our houses because not wanting to drive across the golden gate bridge we have this issue i'm going to speak briefly about the specific impacts of my privacy and light and air and with regards to the privacy did you all have the packets i'm more comfortable working with

the packet if you turn to page i believe 13 there's a little bit of a distant picture of my wife in the bathroom on the bath tub many more photos that is the one that the group shows the points from a few feet away and the project sponsors wife backside all the way back had we did a roof visit to the far rear wall and still waved at my wife the bathrooms and the other 3 bathrooms at the other see are equally visible i believe we're entitled to the window to over bathroom without foreclose or fear that someone will pear in on us i'm not you want to look at a 70 years old

lady but they can and i want to not are to worry about that if you could take into account the story poles on page 14 of your packet it gives us the relationship - of the elevators penthouse on part of structure but the relationship of that structure to my courtyard i want to point out to you that the staff in their work and, of course, the project sponsor in his plans refer to that courtyards as a lightwell several of you have been in there and anyone in there immediately knows it not a lightwell an interior open space the ground level is 14 feet by 9

feet it - >> boy that went fast. >> hello, i'm chair farrell i didn't dickey my family lives north of the property for 168 years it is not fitting with the cal hallow guidelines and out of context leading others to build penthouses the sponsor offered only minimal changes beyond the mraltdz they asked to us approve the minor tweaks to respect the neighbors light and air and development that this is a has not occurred in particular it impacts the privacy and light of

neighborhood homes, and incline lift is a viable solution with ceqa guidelines that conflicts point department guidelines and the fourth story edition is visible from the street the fourth floor allows the owners to entertain a deck and a proposed new deck off the thirds floor with a behaving view that should provides the family with amble outdoor space as you can see this shades the children's room note the shadows of vent pipe to the peak of the roof and the experiences asked about a canopy that will further as i said it it didn't need a large people's exhibit 10 penthouses with an elevator they submitted

a letter to the contractor building that a elevator is prefer work to the lift on the website inclined flashlight chair provides a solution in fact, if i look at the importance proposed first year plan expanding plan they need a list only assessable over a few bunch of stairs it received a category exemption b exemption rating and the premsz is not identified in the historic district as you can see on the historic wednesday night part of the hallowing historic district further a letter if reuben, junius & rose office states the structure will not be visible from the street just by showing the photos from hidden trees it will be visual as you can see from gefb court and this photo from the corner of lion street

it is heavy used he by tourists please review the project and deny the penthouse and lower the 8 foot wind-screens and into the children's rooms thank you. >> good morning, everyone. commissioners my name is mario i grew up online street and still own that property with my sister i'm a fourth generation san franciscan that spent most of my life in the marina and cal hallow i'm here to urge you to have a reasonable compromise consistent with our history on the block and within our cal hallow guidelines the defining

characteristic of cal hallow. >> it's that. >> is the beginning characteristics of cal hallowing hallow that are protected to make people want to live here while the presidio's has taken every step to careful the thoughtful development of that national jewel 50 feet away on alliance street we're facing radical aechls you've lived there for decades or in my case most of our lessons this makes that neighborhood a coveted place to live we researched and respectfully developed the fourth cal hallow guidelines guidelines we're e roetd the features that make cal hallow a special place to live every time one of those exceptions p is

maids no interning back those exceptions maybe seem inconsequential they can be ruin us as a neighborhoods team we've developed good morning, supervisors gotten petitions signed and brokered compromises with the neighborhoods we've commodity our on countless issues in order to be good neighbors we stand in front of you, we are are respectfully asking you to protect the majorities opinion and embrace the preservation policies while stewarding good public policies thank you. >> so good afternoon, commissioners i'm keith just

around the corner from lion i've been there for 14 years with over neighborhoods you've heard a consistent theme we're supportive of the project sponsor but getting a compromise that is consisted with the cal hallow guidelines frankly the most significant defensive is the prospective the building envelope is used in the rdt the primary emphasis on guess envelope from the streets and secondarily from the cal hallow guidelines consider the visible impacts from the street and others facilities from the block it is the boarders prospective that makes it is important and keeps the unique character the neighborhood everyone neighbor will see the penthouse and compel mayor the continuity if

it so filbert we are not suggesting they innovate build the roof deck a modesty assessed deck for stairs that arises to the consulate didn't conflict that the guidelines there a handrail for non-an ambulancey access with many long gone resolved before it is issued unfortunately, that? not what happened in continued success really depends on our ability to implement the guidelines and on the rare occasions not able to reach compromises we ask you to endorse the quality active other projects like 37 baker thank

you. >> high hi i lived in the neighborhoods for almost 50 years that graphic thank you depict our block in red and other rooftop prongs they commodity in yellow 2737 barker start with the roof deck promoted online but 3 key things happened long before the prong came to the commission the sponsor removed the stair penthouse they're doing this citywide and all radio doing this in cal hallow in a hearing

on may 12th the commission district the project sponsors to reduce the penthouse and finally, the project was to return but the project sponsor met the commissioners concerns and the dr was dropped as a result of compromise the roof deck has glass railings and three hundred and 35 square feet would no penthouse equally as for the compromise on barker helped to negotiate every spokesperson of similar projects voiding costly and time senator newman drs were there will be a three hundred and 50 square feet deck with 42 glass railings setback from all 4 property lines and no roof deck and other features were allowed on the property number two, of the roof deck my light and air and

privacy are not added stake i stand in support of cal hallow guidelines this historical gem and in supports of my neighbors that are asking for reasonable compromise that's what we do on this block two things not allow anything larger that was piloted in the barker street case and let staff you know you'll be exploring this standard on every cal hallow case they too can help prevent unnecessary drs thank you fooufr for your service san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners robert am appearing in opposition it to this prong i'm a resident lived nearby the

neighborhood for 50 years on the cal hallowing advisors board association i urge you reject this project not fitting for the neighborhood and not in compliance with the cal hallow guidelines thank you for your time and service. >> good afternoon. my name is a ann live on union street with my husband we also there for 27 years and we're just around the corner from 2720 you are backyards butt up against each other this project is totally out of character with our neighborhood and block keep in mind the photo that was showed you the view of the

backside of the houses about but this is totally disrupting the roofline and brings basically an extra room on top of a building looking back into our back of our house that is and it is a terrible precedence for future development in the neighborhoods total out of character i think that should be denied thank you. >> any mark i'm an lion at the corner of lion two houses up from the project as the project itself i've got the same picture that milo had it speaks for itself the fourth floor with the matters at hand as much inconsistent with the roofline and setting a disadvantaging precedence and say this can't be built elsewhere it voiments the

cal hallow guidelines unlike the citywide have public and private place this is something you know you can actually see this project from all the homes on union street as well as the presidio's and by predators online street and we have pictures the residential design team ignored the guidelines that allows the rooftop features the citywide guidelines only look at the prospective from the street level i ask what's the point of having going through the adaptation in the commission ignores our guidelines we were reassured by decisions you made in 2012 the prong 27 as mentioned many times today also more recently in the neighborhood that didn't have design guidelines you r you all

in november removed a penthouse from the two single-family homes and never calls called that in december you removed an addition on 27 street i think in conclude i'll urge to follow our previous decisions as you exercise are our discretion adopt the setback informs the individuals and reduce the scale of the deck this is consistent with the compromise that was put on the table by the neighborhoods a copy in our packet if you have any questions, please let me know thank you. >> any others speakers in support of dr requester if not project sponsor please.

>> can i make a request we have a model of the neighborhoods can i move the table up. >> if you think you can move the model maybe too big to that table it looks like it is bigger than the table. >> okay. >> can you correct it. >> show us how to connect the commenters. >> your presentation not is on a memory is it correct. >> no on the laptop the only we only use the memory sticks to upload presentations to that computer. >> in addition he have some handouts commissioners you'll see in the handouts one of the things we're including is the 3-d considerate

renderings good afternoon. i'm the architect for this project at 2720 lion with me the homeownership's the planning department outlined that this is important to understand since we feel it addresses many of the concerns of privacy life enrichment committee and views that is raised but is dr applicant. >> the cutters section of the roof framing create the space in between where the heating and plumbing runs 0 the thirst floor we want to lower the roof for the new deck below the thirst floor framing you'll see right

here that lowers the deck 15 inches from the finished level of the existing roof from the promoted plan a person is standing 15 inches lower than the roof that allows the wind gene and parapet and- than if he built the new deck on top of the existing roof since our first submittal it under west portal the comments from the of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a and you are own good faith revisions those are outlined a simple drawings to should or show what we originally have submitted in june 2034 and the current drawings we feel the dr has for the

demonstrated this is exceptional or extraordinary circumstances her application cites the concerns of the neighborhoods and, in fact, numerous works within the neighborhoods that exists and visible from the street this is a map you have in your packet the green properties are penthouses and enclosures that currently exist and roof decks visible from the students keaton rebate and rick and i have been working with the association diligently and made sixth revisions and many concessions we had the neighborhood up to discuss that and assess their properties for better concerns we conducted the meeting to with the invitation of the neighbors with was rest

sent and protecting one person private view the neighborhoods in the cal hallow association concerned your precedence on this decision that they've been at odds before we begin our project from the fourth floor plague online it should be noted this neighbor was recently underground to build a new fourth floor roof deck the dr applicant has expressed concern we want to ask rick to present you with a review of the past. >> actually katherine. >> my husband and i have talked about the impact the 3-d model here shows you the neighborhood character and evolves over time we have had points in time and in addition

many of the husbands and wives you've heard from are disputing our project the plain wood structures existed 45 years ago except one was built by the neighborhoods the story started in 2010 and lion in 1972. >> later hoops added on square feet to his home adams on 4 hundred square feet and the dickey's square feet added and they were devastated and sold last year they added a major remodel as you can see our project p is much smaller in scope we've made changes to address the concerns for the small impact thank you,

ma'am. >> speakers in support of project sponsor. >> good afternoon, everyone. i have known katherine for 12 years and rick for 5 i'll talked about the people at a high-level their thoughtful con rat they're close to the parents and the type of people for they're big vacation plan a vacation they take their patterns on i've watched them work hard to find a house to suit their family and enable them to stay in the city and create a living space for

the parents that needs greater assistance i have reviewed rick and kathy republican republican plans building they're capable with comparable and don't impact any views while i appreciate that san francisco has this process in place to address the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances it smells it is only extraordinarily in how the neighbors are over blown it and the time and energy i've watched them struggle with the neighborhood it it to address their concerns you've heard disagreement think compromise it seems like that is dragged out as long as could be it is discouraging and disappointing i urge you to listen to both sides and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you

thank you. >> do i need to turn this one on. >> when you is there any public comment sfgov will put that on. >> hello my name is lauren louis going to read two letters one from each of the parents not able to travel planning commission i'm rick's mom and son-in-law and daughter-in-law so you get a home to be comfortable inside and out this was changing in san francisco where fuel houses are one level i workout with mccain educating republican and rick having knee problems i didn't go sufficiency of time i want to see the homes rick and kathleen

republican founds alliance street and found after discusses to remodel to accommodate the family and install a elevator to access the whole house including a roof deck i've xhoind the first one resulting in two fractions i fella second time before any 78 birthday i need a walker and all of the importance of the long anticipated elevators the neighbors are unfair i want to be with rick and katherine and not navigate a transfer to some special contraption to take me to the roof deck i'm worried about having another fall i'll never feel xovenlt that is a sad for me and them sincerely.

>> planning commission i'm dloshth treasurer our approval it is important to me my husband of 4 had years died 4 years ago i want to extend time with any daughter kaektd republican he suffer from health issues i broke any ankle and find steps difficult to climb that makes going downstairs laborious but any sensitivity to the members that they need additional care it is important to us to be able to spend time together and not feel discriminated not assessing all areas sincerely mrs. dloshth treasurer thank you for your time. >> okay.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> next speaker >> i'm james the father of rick i'd like to play a recording for you from his grandmother if i could. >> my grandson and grand daughter-in-law have been married for 4 years they looked for a house for others first two years one big enough to

accommodate four bedrooms and in addition to a roof deck with access to the accommodate this disabled family members he they've spent the 20 second two years working hard to remodel their home only to be detailed by the request to decide on today i would be there today to speak on their on behalf of i'm affordable housing i've broken my leg and injured the other it is quite difficulty tsd difficult to get around in addition i coincident u couldn't spend the night tonight if i could be there only the stairs i don't really understand our neighbors obtaining to their project have been able to accomplish any modifications to their homes over the years yet smaller projects like rick and kathy

they object to i'm strongly from favor of their project to include the elevator and the access tattoos rules committee it allows me and others to unable to navigate the stairs with and stay at their home i appreciate over taking the times to hear me and ask you approve rick and katherine's project. >> thank you >> good afternoon commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm arne a architect and a certified assess planner with the architect in terms of the

preserving the character the neighborhood of this potential historic neighborhoods the design as proposed definitely needs a secretary of interior for rehabilitation under which the design of this rooftop construction should be granted in terms of the assessable we're all getting older you leader from the tapes and the family as you've heard proposing 0 bring their aging parents into their home in addition under buyers waterways served the country and the same access to mantsz enjoyed by his neighbors the elevator will provide it is a suggestion that the father and mother could use an keenly platform open to the sky and instead of home elevator those in incline lifts in the down position then they can't be used

a legal means of egress into the roof you need a legal stairs as wide as riders plus the in incline lifts guitarist used in commercial installations and basically they are the late option when a home elevator is not used the size of the elevator is exaggerated 10 feet they'll be 8 feet and dropping the roof 15 inches to and they're putting it in the middle of the property the least of visible part of it the people have talked about the wind-screens and the 42 inches it should be noted 42 inches for a good luck and not meant as a winds screens they're typically

8 to 10 feats high in conclusion no extraordinary circumstances the bureaus family differ to enjoy the same matters at hand and urge you to not grant the discretionary review. >> any others speakers in support of project sponsor. >> okay i don't see any dr requester you have a rebuttal. >> i've said my peace other than the negative impacts on my house the neighborhood and future this map shows that mass neighborhood support against this project as the way it stands we building that save access to the roof to all people including disabled the elevator has

several models of liquifies they claim they're an excellent accessibility and suitable for outside or inside use a straight staircase with two landing? the same sponsors expert advise. >> some loads of access maybe better than anothers for guests why the planned sponsors included an slaeltdz deck on top of deck assault and battery by stairs they showed you the picture they showed you this picture that choice piece of realty could be accessible only by stairs we believe that you also should ask the project sponsor whether he looked at you will options we don't know this is an incorporated part of egress when

an elevator can't be used in an earthquake or fire i ask you honor the guidelines to setback the rails and lower the wind scenes their patents don't live there i don't think that was clear i don't create a loophole for future developers that want to create fourth floors over the height limits without regards to the people in the neighborhoods and project sponsor you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> reuben, junius & rose representing the project sponsor we think about this homeownership is one of the largest financial investments we make when we talk about where we do to our homes it gets person

and emotional but what we have a code compliant project not to be looked we have a doctor and the commissioners to determine whether this is exceptional or extraordinary circumstances here that is a high stated we're not talking about setting a precedence every case a case by case that's how the code is written when we talk about the roof deck it has three hundred and 83 square feet of usually space it is harder visible from the street the elevator is very important to use it is necessary for us to provide a reasonable accomodation to the project sponsors elderly and disabled family members it is true they don't live there now they can't because of stairs this to us is about equal assess

and jieblt of the property this provides a process for administrative approval or code compliant the reason we're not asking we are code compliant so i want to make a couple of corrections in terms of facts we're lowering the roof we 15 inches their transparent clear materials on the windows when you look at the photos from her house they're taken from a ladder someone is standing open o a ladder the elevator is 8 and a half feet above the parapet the plans provide for the measurement thank you. >> okay. the public hearing is close know up to

commissioners commissioner richards. >> wow, it is a lot i don't think i've seen this itch energy i hand to to the association their tare ability to meet and care for the neighborhood i appreciate the ac anyone i see on everyone's part i visited the the project sponsor not one crossword from anyone about anyone we don't see that often with that said, i guess the question i have is the roof deck does read add a room a units extension it is you know normally heights of rooms are 10 feet you have a planters with a 5 and a half foot it looks like a room it is not a couple of deck chairs on a roof with a bottle of wine but i understand why the

pardon wants to program that i was on the roof deck an 27 lion and saw many roof deck in the neighborhood if this map shows additional roof deck and penthouses i guess didn't have a keen enough eye to see how many those are extensive to be accurate one question he have for mr. learn erica you come up a second. >> and mr. learner. >> i'm sorry mr. learner no problem it's the braces i'm sorry. >> i know you wrote in our wrote a letter and talked about superior ways of transportation the population is aging we know this boom is coming i have a 91-year-old mother if she come

up comp to this deck actually an elevator is oil of ideal. >> if you need assistance a home elevator is far superior the platform levis those exposed to the weather fail a lot and they're primarily uses in commercial facilities inside and protected so like in walgreens from one room to the next. >> to up to the time put it out in the rain is a problem waiting to happen and people mistakenly think you have a stairway i'll put a list when you are talking about egging degrees that list will northbound a down position you not only have the down kline lifts but need allocate stair

there is export and import the easy which an incline lobbyist what about used the stairwell was to show the spiral stairs the smallest stair as opposed to taking their switch backs which is a much large. >> so for egging regress if i'm in a wheelchair and the power goes off how do i get from the roof to safety or a fire how does that work. >> well, a battery back up could be placed on the elevator in the event that one person in the wheelchair could get down we've not installed those. >> that make sense. >> still even in the building

inspection and this building basically you'll see the sign in case of a fire use the stairs so the fire department goes up and carries them down most likely otherwise you'll see it out in the hallway not users it but get the fire department to bring them down. >> thanks i guess ma'am, or staff a question question how hallowing guidelines kind of what force do necessary have here. >> i think this is important to diminish within the guidelines and the appendix the guidelines were passed the appendix was not so the guidelines do talk about their - they're very consistent with the rdt - the residential

guidelines there's an assumption to see the addition shouldn't block uphill project - neighbors and in this case, the power point is not you - he feel that the deck and the penthouse don't are not necessarily in addition to the in addition with the large habitual space. >> it is a fresh statement to make perhaps they don't take into consideration the building assess you'll use an elevator to, superior from one floor to another. >> possible. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i saw the wind-screens throughout the neighborhood one down i don't know the address looks like they steetdz the scope of work around 6 feet or 7

feet the question on wind-screens a 342 inch railing a safety issue don't want to fail over what's the minimum amount of height so my mother who is sitting out through francis scott key the windows and making her chill out a set amount maybe mr. learner what's the minimum height of a wind-screen 8 feet is very, very at all. >> it depends on where you are and the wind patterns there are strong patterns of wind in this neighborhood from i think about when this hearing starting 24 miles per hour i think roughly 6 to 8 feet needs the wind-screen to protect people. >> i was on the roof i know i don't if so was 20 miles per

hour i couldn't imagine any 90 years old mother being up there i lived across if a agencies house always condensation i looked it everyday day there are privacy issues i believe i was in the bedroom of the many warner daughter able to see i was in the bathroom of many stephen i sup there i think i have talked about to the project sponsor they're willing to move the sink not looking at direct into the skylight but i think where i'm going with that in my opinion out to the rest of the commission i will reduce the height of the weekends gene e

screen not sure the programming excuse me. of the deck the arrangement your agreed to i'll say part of solution since the spiral stairs a emergency egging regress limit the penthouse to the similarities not create a garage where you have a fire and perhaps have a hatch emergency way to get down the steps and spiral staircases are hard you could slip if you had a drink or two please come up and let us know what you think. >> along with the elevator is the landing area outside of the elevator which is covered and then you go through a door through the roof deck we do that

because residential elevators have not rated wire trying to keep the elements out of the elevator shaft not to say have to go to a commercial elevator 13 feet tall instead of a 10 foot tall. >> i completely thinks excuse me. how much of a covering to keep the elements out. >> well, i believe what we have there a 3 and a half cover area and get out and have the 2, 8, 2, 10 door. >> i'm a little bit not thinking clearly the staircase is under the covering. >> yeah. the drawings show the staircase and landing share. >> how wide is the staircase

is it give us the protection especially, if the staircase is out how wide it that. >> we believe that the landing in front of the staircase is about another 2 feet. >> for the staircase and for the elevator they're sharing normally 3 feet of landing area for a elevator but their sharing alters extra. >> how wide is the staircase and 5 feet 67 diameter. >> plus the 3 feet a much longer mass. >> rectangle yes. >> exactly. >> thank you so i would try to exclude the stair and allowing the programming they want to put a

vegetable gardens nice cactus but want to put the wind-screen on the inside of the planter could be served through a sliding door or speaking it repeat keeps the planter things die and all of a sudden not a planter and he had wind is on the property line i'd like to move that back and put-put the screen on the other side i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say and maybe in combination i hate when the commission designs something and the dr process it is not fair i if hear the neighbors opposed to some sort of deck or smaller, smaller sunroom or smaller- i didn't hear that the elevators f doesn't exist not an attempt to

keep the elevator in the tallest part of building but not downstairs i want to see a pitching in of the overhead penthouse to give a little bit of relief to the neighbors seeing in the tallest part a little bit less impact on the neighbors i know this is not knowing the block and not real houses a pattern a rife line pattern and pinch it back commissioner antonini. >> yeah. he wanted it ask the architect he see he's on his way up here to answer the question race a number of other floors impractical to put the elevators in between the two floors.

>> what we've done gifted the scope of the work into two permits the exterior work has to do with with the planning department the interior we'll submit once we have a resolution here but that interior scope has a lot of interior remodel makes the elevator impossible without effecting larger areas of kitchens and bathrooms and so on we pushed it outs to where the new stairs exterior stairs go against the property line. >> privacy was you're not going to see anything from the elevators is encompassed by walls on all sides none will look at but impressed with the models

of presented by the project sponsor i the fourth one of the original you can't know can he stadium in elementary school but it is far beyond that i hope you keep them they're nice my question is i think it is answered maybe staff could help me the stair i'm thinking about whether they want to do a circle last year or it is doesn't matter but how about a trapdoor it makes that open less of an emergency issue but someone wants to use the escalators lift it up. >> i'm not sure this is something that more would be appropriate for the project sponsor we're happy the department supports covering the stair from the setback didn't

cause any loss of privacy or life enrichment committee so for us it is no difference. >> i'm thinking i'm inclined to do the minimum amount of overhang to protect the elevators and make the stair probably separate from the elevator and then it makes the massing on top of the roof less i mean, i, is for example, i visited the gentleman's home beautiful home it is a huge house the only reason his decks are not impacted he's at the top of hill and his house blocks his decks but this deck is relatively small and in ma ways whatever we can do to keep the

line as clean as possible would be a good thing one approval didn't set a precedent we take every single project seriously and if this gets approved if an form that allows for the elevator because of the accessibility reasons didn't mean everyone will get one on top of their roofs as far as the height of the wind-screen i don't know right now i guess if populated to 66 inches from what your hearing is that correct? project sponsor the height of the wind-screen? >> so let me show you this so right now this line here the top of new participated were any

finger is the dash is the existing roof the winds gene a 5 feats 6 inch on top of the new parapet and from where you stands which were lowering where you stands on the deck at distance from the deck to the top of the wind-screen is the 8 feet but the actual glass. >> you're sure my math didn't match you're dropping the deck 15. >> 15 inches. >> 1 15 inches our thing is 55 inches do the math and 56. >> oh, 66 it depends on where you measure it the wind-screens are going to be on top of the exist parapet. >> no. >> down on deck level.

>> the winds screens this is where my finger maybe i should pass this around that tarnish. >> that's the exist parapet if you look at the back of the house the top of the wall the exterior wall is we need a thirty inch parapet from our surface are our test for fire protection. >> okay. >> what we need to do add 15 inches to the existing roof to get to the top of the parapet to have thirty inches of space on top of new parapet a 5 feet 6 participate that's our screen. >> i think i've got the concept my point is this i think the wind-screens are fine but you know, i got a deck in back of my house when it is when the

winds is blowing like crazy arrest windy we don't go out there this is one way to protect yourselves there are times you use the deck and times you don't i believe in the wind-screens to make them usable more oven seems like in the collective height above the deck where people will be standing is you know no more than 6 feet and didn't have to be that high maybe 4 and a half 5 that to me seems last week, a a lot it will block out our stepping down i think 1 inches below as the project sponsor said your actual screens maybe higher off the floor of the deck but the height off the parapet didn't need to be more than 5

feet at a most i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say it is within thing sit down if you're not happy with the wind been severe and you know, i think that they're going date of birth clear i am sure the project sponsors will clean up them clean they could occasionally get grim i didn't the thing is a possible setback i know one commissioner commissioner johnck's talked about setting the wind-screens inside the planters hard to serve as a planters if you bring the wind genes in a foot or two on the north and south side will alleviate any concerns that had been impossible for someone to see in the windows if their

setback you know 12 to 18 inches away or possible 18 inches but impossible the project architect can you comment on that. >> i just want to clarify the planters that we're proposing are permanent planters they're not box not moveable this drairg we're setting back the planters you can't get closer than 3 feet. >> that means. >> both the north and south and both the north and south and can't climb on top of them that alleviates some of problems i don't have too many other thoughts i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner hillis. >> so thank you for that i

agree with commissioner richards that 5 with the neighbors and a lot of ac anyone we usually see he go back to the cal hallow association and their take on this and lean towards what they've presented we've - the residential guidelines are not great at handling roof decks you could build a third floor and in their lightwells expect them to be privacy but the kind of roof decks looming over the neighbors i personally i want to take a close look how they impact the direct neighbors i too was in the naeshz house in the bathroom the windows look up the new height limits were covet at the height limits and could go

higher and highway people we've seen a lot more in the way of roof decks i think we were on in the right direction we were setting back and anytime missing and trying to minimize the stuff the thinks outside the box and what not associated with the staurlz and hatches we know that commissioner moore leans towards this is the biscuit roof decks kind of complex i've seen an elevator penthouse and stair penalty penthouse we're at the edge on the building of the north and south side i lean towards the cal hallow recommendations of eliminating and being consistent with the past couple of meeting and pr's will roof deck and

infrastructure they taken on a little bit of a life ever their own a question for the architect you've got a external staircase in the middle of the house you can carry that through to the deck instead out of spiral staircase. >> we made a decision if we tried to carry the stair tloots through the deck you'll essential have a larger grocery on the roof that is parallel thought property line. >> i don't have to have and enclosure as a mirror. >> slices of which we thinks outside the box or something like that so it will be parallel to the property line that not only cover the lightwell the adjacent of 2710 the courtyards lightwell

of 2710 and impact that seriously applies and oranges to placing the elevator east of the courtyards. >> but you'll be pretty far to the north of the lightwell. >> the stairs in our floor plan again, it reiterates our the exist stairs, however, the project in total includes interior remodels on the south property line. >> so the exterior impervious plans what the interior permit expletives of the drawings on deal with the exterior elements that is what plane planning it interested in. >> we've gotten drawing from

all four floors and . >> we're pushing out second floor terrace in the rear we have to show you that so on let me show you this is the floor plan of the thifr on the interior floor plan the new stair over here this is the south property line wall and courtyards of 2710 this stair goes 1, 2, 3 floor this is the spiral stair you see in this submittal ms. the elevator you see in the submittal so and this floor plan see the extensive renovation with the existing two bedroom that is on

two to a 3 bedroom thifrt to accommodate the parents that statutorily goes through the entire this it would be helpful to have the plans to determine. >> we're going not opposite direction of staurlz we approved a 13 unit building that had less stuff on the roof than here generally in a for instance, i'll lean towards the

elimination of the elevators service the thifrt and perhaps not the roof deck or the elevator services the roof deck but set the rails back from the north and south property line i don't that we've seen a wind shield of this size as you drive down the streets you see the moisture and look large i can't imagine at a 6 foot height he lean towards the cal hallow grew up did a good effort of trying to compromise on that i get the issues of trying to get assess i believe we're setting precedence we are city manager's office

more and more wrkdz a significant amateur of infrastructure than we've seen before this is going the other way. >> it this a motion. >> i'd like to hear and i'm in agreement. >> so let's put that i don't know let's talk about the motion so i would agree to set the railings back 3 feet, because they say eliminate the daylight staircase with the architect this is not possible with the configuration of what we're looking at i can't have a day lighted staircase how did that assess the roof. we are eliminating the elevator >> can you help us with that a little bit i mean no where we're doing is the commission trying to minimize the impact along the

lines of what was approved down the street and i don't know if you've seen the deliberations earlier what we've done with hatches or minimized aged stairs i've hearing from the commission seems like the elevator is a necessary components the landing in front of the elevator goes with that myself and the owners would be somewhat architectural to day latin-american ever putting a hatch over the spiral stair so the closure doesn't extends over that piece in terms of setting the railing back aesthetically if you leave the winds screens i'm not talking

about height if i leave the wind screens at the property line and allow the planters i think aesthetically from the vantage point nicer than having an empty roof no way to service a planting around the perimeter as far as the wind-screen we've heard numbers that are comfortable the range of 6 to 8 feet we've proposed 8 feet obviously not setting well with everybody. >> i get less comfortable at 42 we've not approved a 6 foot winds screen on a major building people are relying on that roof deck allowable roof deck space

we don't do that is going down a path that not appropriate and especially in a residential neighborhoods autobiographies one thing to consider you know again, we're lowering the deck so if i propose somewhere between the 42 he 60 on top of the new parapet we get winds protection and also reduce is overall preserved height from the surrounding area this is something to consider. >> so, i mean i would be willing to make a motion to set the rails back 3 feet he get our point of planters we have people that remove planters you've got to built in and i could put the

planters on outside so set the railings back the roof deck back 3 feet on the north side and south side and element the wind-screen to the height and then work with staff to minimize the staircase penthouse to either a hatch or a minimum aged stairwell. >> if we're going to move the winds screens 3 feet off the property line that is taking away a growing the vegetable if we'll be able to extend slightly to the west in order to put some type of planting area boxes something for the owner to grow. >> to the west towards the presidio's.

>> towards the front. >> move the dr - are you clear iowa he's suggesting. >> if you're going to lose square footage on the sides. >> honestly they have a background with a swimming pool. >> why don't you have to have it on the roof. >> is there an impact to move the enclosed roof deck 3 feet to the west towards the front of the building the 42 inch railing height anatomies plans we had offered that they continue the existing stairs up and closing the lightwell against our building that part of the roof deck would be up against our see of the building they've

broadway-sansome apartments be quacking down the stairs and seeking into the skylight so from the elevator penthouse was removed and used that solution they'll be able to get more room on the back see to do vegetable gardening. >> you're aware of where the elevator penthouse was? may be one issue would the elevator penthouse with the roof deck is the neighbor to the south and that you looking at your entry i propose the line of the roof deck remain to the east of where the elevators enclosure. >> it is a significant entry is that the area. >> can you say that again. >> if he were to remove the

elevators in and the liquor proposing to replace that with a roof deck it looms too close to the neighbors entry court. >> that begs the question how do you get up there the interior stair which effects the programming side. >> through the spiral staircase and minimize. >> what about the accessibility issues a this is the access to the third floor and eye the stairs in some other means to assess the roof deck. >> so someone in a wheelchair has to get off the elevator on the tlirt thirsting and transitioned i'm not sure. >> are make the request under the administrative code we're dealing with the dr and in the

plan. >> right. right >> i just don't think it as equitable issue to the roof deck this is not the forum to debate that we're looking at setting the roof deck not necessarily a precedence but a decision that folks rely parts of dr from now until actually, we make changes we have to look to what we did before and what was appropriate to a residential neighborhood so sorry i mean, i would consider i'd move to take dr with the following changes setback the roof deck on the north and south side and eliminates the elevator penthouse work with staff it

minimize a staircase penthouses or hatch for the staircase leading up to the roof deck and lower the height of the wind-screen to 42 inches required by the building. >> second. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess i was going to ask the person from the cal hallow association if you can thrills the parallels distinct the one you cited down the hill to what was been proposed in this motion so we can understand how to jives with the - what was the address again, i know i saw it from the rbldz of 27 hundred there's a lot here. >> commissioners broke from

cal hallow association this is the 27 theo, 37 project in test final form of three hundred and 35 square feet a lightwell was nearing is mirror the existing lightwell of the neighborhoods thus this is a sobriety are that the staircase assess from the europe level continues up to the roof deck and turns away from the lightwell of the neighbors to the north the skylights are off the 3 foot side property line and there was a sobriety here to deal with the privacy initial wish a e.r. issues of union as you recall the setback to the front the property was removed all the way

back to this line here creating a total testify three hundred and 35 square feet the privacy issue was take care of what the stucco parapet here and a solid wall here not higher than railing height and the glass winds screen of 42 inches office building is on the occur curriculums. >> can i ask about the access ask there an elevation of that. >> i do. >> the access is staircase only and it is setback again from the side property bits the 3 feet of this added lightwells so that essential in the center of the building. >> with the penthouses. >> no penthouses daylight

stair. >> are you still interested in the elevation it is a little bit smaller a smaller. >> is there a way to make this larger it is what it is i could pass it instead oh, thank you. >> so you see the interior staircase continues up to the roof itself here's the parapet wall i was describing there is a privacy element to the north

property where there is that lightwell a raised parapet on the side propelling this is actually with the 42 inch wind-screen let me double check the measurement for us the wind-screen is one foot 10 inches on top of the 3 foot 3 inch parapet. >> i have another question maybe ma'am, you can help the administrative code was a relief for accessibility how does that work in this case what would the project sponsor need to do? >> that is a process i

personally am not clear on. >> okay. >> perhaps - >> okay. >> image this is intended for projects that are not code compliant. >> having a elderly mother i news for the 14 months i completely understand the two sides die want to contribute please. >> if i can talk about at accessibility this is a fair new ordinance that was just became effective in march of this year done for the purpose of making sure the city is complying complying with the americans with disabilities act and the california fair housing act we didn't have anything else they're doing the same to make

sure a process to request reasonable accumulation for example, rick's mother can't live there because on a access to stairs what the process talks about there are these certain types of administrations they're reasonable you can ask in order to insure equal access to housing there recent a possess by which you can do it some types of administrations code compliant that don't require it a administrative level it talks about slates one elevators in i am not dimension of the codes for reasonable administration operating provided the elevator is not visible from the public right-of-way and safeguarded 10 feet from the elevator is needed for the access to achieve the

accomodation there is it is valid i suggest there is a separate process to do something we're in a public forum all the concerned parties are here for that reason he suggest this is the proper forum. >> so the question for the city attorney are roof decks considered part of living space if we stop the elevators at the thifrt some other way to with get up to the roof does this discriminate. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns that particular question i don't have an answer for your today, i could certainly research that and work with the staff this is a question for the zoning administrator in terms of interpreting the planning code but, however, i was not all for the comments i was coming upstairs from my office just to

repeat some of the process under the administrative code a fairly recent changes in the last come up of years when something prohibited by the planning code and it is for creating exemptions to the planning code requirements under the state and federal disability wlauz to provide reasonable donations to people of our planning code prohibits if someone has a disability they need certain access to part of their home it is a way to get around prohibition and the code compliant project that process in the administrative code wouldn't be appropriate here because what you have is actually code compliant. >> i'm taking dr and denying the project. >> denying the project and

changing the project so not allow the elevator. >> i'm sorry i don't understand our question the motion on the floor not to have a penthouse would that will pro bono the access. >> i think i'm that is a slight misunderstanding of what i was saying i was saying that the administrative code process is provide for when something is prohibited by the code here in front of you is a project that is completely loud by our code but in front of the you under the discretionary review of whether or not it is creating a sort of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances go impacts on the neighborhood even though it is code compliant so if you were inclined to disapprove to take dr i remedy you continue the item so i can work with staff to research

their issues raise from the accessibility requirement and i move to continue this to as such time you'll indicate we're on the quick round or not. >> i'm sorry is this in regard to the elevator not reaching the proposed roof deck. >> yes. >> i'll second that. >> but i want to make some comments in addition i'm not supportive of the motion that of maids because i think that the - there are impacts innovate exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and i think that accessibility is important i think i've gotten suggests we've tried to make compromises we relieve the elevator and cutdown back the rest of the thing and you know i'd be more inclined to be supportive i have one more question for the architect to get this straight the parapet habitus off of the

above the walking level how much 3 feet. >> the parapet level is thirty inches. >> okay thirty inches that means if you have a 42 inch wind-screen you're up to 6 feet that is perfect high enough for very tall people might have trouble with the wind and the parapet have to stay at the edge of the building or could be moved upset from the building according to dbi. >> the parapets are at the edge of the building because of fire protecting fire if jumping one building to another if you have an in set obviously that piece of exposed. >> the way aim going though we probably won't get there today leave the parapets and cut dune

the height of the winds screen that to 44, 72 inches you have 6 foot wind-screens and put some sort of structures not move able to accommodate the concerns of privacy the planters could be fine whatever they can't be motives or walked on or assessable to stand on this i mean be the best solution to go along those lines. >> i believe as a correction we're talking about 42 inches off the top of the roof. >> in the winds screens start at the rooftop level. >> i'm fine with 42 above the parapets they could a little bit lower but this is a conversation. >> if you're start above the

parapet. >> the project sponsor has plenty of wind protection and while they effectively are about 6 feet above the lastly the parapet the parapet is what they see they did public can't see because of the parapet the height of the wind-screens will only be 42 inches above those that's united states way i would suggest it be done. >> commissioner president fong. >> it you have 42 inches above the roof deck your 12 inches above the parapet. >> at least commissioner hillis suggestion was savings account 3 feet from that you. >> i still was not quite finished i think that feet is excess and cuts that thing down a lot you've got a 25 foot width and loss a little bit so with 3

feet you're cutting off a lot and making a narrow deck so 2 feet open both sides is the most i'll do that with some sort structures to keep people if getting where the parapet is that should satisfy thank you i any privacy you can't get more than 2 feet to the edge of the building then nobody mr. will see anything that's my feeling but i'll vote for continuance unless we can shape any questions anything. >> commissioner wu. >> i prefer not to continue i think everyone has given a lot of time i've supportive of cutting back 3 feats on the north and it alignment in bringing the railing back as to the elevator and stair i

missed it earlier is it feasible to do an elevator and then the stair is a hatch or cheese wedge i think you called it. >> yeah. so i think your question can we do the slate and not the enclosure over the stair it is possible to not do the enclosure over the stair but the landing in front of of the stair is essential to having the elevator it allows us to have a residential elevator if we for go the covered landing it becomes a commercial elevators. >> but 3 lemons the elevators, the landing and stair the stairs didn't include enclosure correct. >> that's correct. >> i'll be supportive of shaping that and maybe come to

an agreement and commissioner richards one last time mr. learner talk about the next best thing down from an elevator since we have a motion to eliminates the elevators what is out there a spiral staircase and to get a person up. >> a platform a hydrogen platform elevators but those things exposed to the weather fail you need to enclosures it, it is much bigger a home elevators i'd like to say that what people 65 there are 44 millions people if the u.s. and 90 millions coming up so in terms of setting a precedence of baby boomers i was born after it end liquidating more and more cases of what people want to have equal access to all parts

of their home it is the tip of the iceberg so in terms of setting a precedence you're setting a precedence or discrimination say i feel mike my age i see elevators in restaurants that's clear the penthouse is clear it is a neat thing the elevators is not at the top i see through polk street worker could that will done here with a solid elevators. >> like glass like the winds screens. >> i'll be supportive of leaving the elevator. >> but not something massive that is a good compromise. >> sure. >> so you have to think about the components of the elevators the elevators have chains and cables if you make it glass you'll see that and when the

elevators comes up a smaller mass you see is chain, i guess my question to the determining dr requester you have a solid or somewhat clear and a chain what would you prefer we'll leave it up to you. >> that's the only choices. >> my understanding also is that the shaft needs to be have a rating it is basically a hole in the how is it niece a property line wall and drywall wood and rating so that's why you see it in residents. >> i'll withdraw my continuance go ahead. >> speak onto the mike. >> the only thing we're reagan from the experts that are

providing from the project sponsor if under those a continuance we'd like the opportunity to provide expert opinion i reads the contractors website the outdoor contract that cited in the experts report i'll be respectfully request we have chance to ask experts. >> you're withdrawing the motion to continue commissioner hillis. >> i'll put the motion back to continue we're big deal asked thing beyond the scope and we're asking for minimize the penthouses on the roof whether it is one elevators and a penthouses or a hatch and the other way around no elevators and a stair with an assessable way to gipt there i think this is what happens when you don't

compromises we're left to do the architecture and design with people trying to figuring out so i say you've heard the commission people are learning towards 3 feats a 42 inch railing, and minimize the penthouse and give you time to think about that you. >> i'll second that. >> it's okay. we're 2 nature hours commissioner johnson. >> so fine i'm not the going to support a continuance we're going to quickly get into issues one more meeting is not going to make and me an expert i'm sympathetic to setting precedent on the size of roof deck and whether or not they added another story but at the same time people want accessibility

and their place we've had others drs and the reason based on the floor plan and the other buildings we've seen the elevators is literally outside of the floor plan it goes up to the roofline i'll not be supportive if so an important part of program i'm not support a continuance. >> commissioner antonini. >> i feel that way but if so tough to get it done today but continuance can have benefits from the people involved know what the rules are going to be sounds like the commission is feeling the elevators stay we don't want to hear about the different teaches of elevators the elevator will be there and possible something made that reaches a compromise on the height of the weekends shields

and others parapets and separation those are the 3 issues it is okay to continue what is your times of continuance three weeks. >> i want to make sure you get the gists the continuance is skiing go back to the drawing board but maybe an agreement the elevators is there by law whatever but asking for the elevators and all the way out to the edge is a bit much i hope those pies are well noticed go ahead if you have a comment. >> i'm one of the sponsors i think we would - welcome the opportunities to come to a conclusion today and be willing to setback the winds shields behind the back the planters and just the 42 inches above the top

of patented and open stairwell and leave the elevators as is enclosure in front in order not to have a commercial elevators keep the closure in front of it we need in order it to have that 10 feet high elevator and setback on the north and settings 3 feet and rise to 42 inches and okay. >> you want to clarify just to be clear the motion from the maker is that the wind-screens is 42 inches above the roof deck not above the parapet there is a confusion about that. >> at least the way the motion currently stands. >> this is the roof decks this

is the parapet. >> yeah. >> commissioners i'm sorry so we're actually advocating spending a lot of money to drop the roof and i'm sure we can have both architects tell you that is a significant accept to drop the roof and go 42 inches up from this dropped roof it is unreasonable in terms of looking at if our prfbs we i know we have some elderly parents that niece winds protection we're making a confirmation by dropping the roof in other words, to give them that extra protection why not let our efforts to drop the roof and still keep that measure we might have had if we had a roof decks

and - >> thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> so to both parties a 6 member commission 4 vetoes if i don't support a continuance we're forcing the issue somebody might lose if we have a 33 split why not take 20 minutes with the permission of the chair to go outside and try to solve this that would a good 20 minutes invests. >> there's a lot of complex including the lore of the thifrt. >> why not do it in 20 minutes or two weeks there are are the complications of the roof deck. >> i think. >> i'll support a continuance.

>> and the issue the day lighted chairs a stairs which ones were the spiral stairs and you daylight the spiral the architect. >> hang on one second. >> my understanding we were offering to daylight the spiral stairs. >> how does you do that. >> put a hatch. >> not really daylight. >> i've daylighted them before you create a well and put draining and a pumping but that has complications it is better to do the hatch. >> you could daylight the existing staircase up to the fourth floor and daylight it an assembly lift it is xhaektd and should be.

>> you're open to get rid of elevator. >> i'll ask to continue to three weeks. >> it puts us on october 29th a cancelled hearing the october 22nd and november 5th are very full calendars you know how that goes. >> but for the short date october 22nd okay. >> (inaudible). >> you know sir, your go going to if you chair allows you to make a comment you need to come up to the microphone. >> it is the last voluntary comment. >> i'm going in important back surge on my spine not able maybe

to participant much less participating i have a very keen interest 2, 3, 4 the result i lost time in my presentation to get to light and air but a higher parapet i'm not able to participant. >> i apologize there's a motion to continue. >> commissioner a motion been sent to continue to october 22nd. >> shall i call that question think outside the box that motion. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson no commissioner richards commissioner wu no and commissioner president fong before i vote staff (laughter) we're very - well, we hope there is a resolution before

october 22nd we'll cross our fingers and encourage that i want clarification on whether or not there will be public comment on this hearing. >> it will be an agenda item that will more than likely be much reduced. >> (inaudible). >> it will not be a dr hearing we've conducted one whatever the chair worries about to but general kept to 3 minutes with public testimony cut to one minute. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns because a continuance of this hearing you'll not have to go through this is exactly what the concert as saying not going though the dr requester and the project sponsor but it is still a dr hearing but only have the public hearing in 3 minutes or

less times but the chair may want that. >> i vote i for the continuance. >> very good commissioners commissioners that places you on general public comment which i have no speakers. >> any general public comment this evening not seeing any, this meeting is >> self-planning works to

preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be

they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the

events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann

>> when the new california academy of sciences opened in 2008, it quickly became one of the top tourist magnets in the city. part of the cal academies' astronomical success is the weekly nightlife party. >> i am joined by helen, who is here to school me on all the nocturnal activities that are getting ready to take place here. tell us a little about what we can expect to see at nightlife. >> we open up the doors every thursday night at the california academy of sciences.

there are certain things you can see every week you can go to the museum, visit the planetarium, and we bring in bars and a deejay or band. it is a different feel from during the day, something different every week. tonight , we have beer and music. -- tonight we have great beer and music. it is beer week. we have a dozen local brewers in african hall. we have a deejays to set up throughout the museum and a live performance at 9:00 p.m. tonight. >> what has been your favorite part as a participant or as an observer? >> my favorite part is to walk around the aquarium in to see people with a drink in their hands, getting to know maybe somebody new, may be looking for a day, or chatting with friends. there jellyfish. i mean, they are beautiful. >> the culmination of the

animals. >> it is very impressive. we do not have this at home. >> tell us a little about some of the spider's we see here on display. >> at the california academy of sciences, there is a very large collection of preserved and live specimens, which are the evidence about evolution. we have the assassin spiders, which are spiders that exclusively kill and eat other spiders. they are under the microscope here. research done and the california academy's i rhinology lab suggests that the assassin spiders have been doing this for over 150 million years. this glassed in room is a real scientific laboratory, and the people in that room are preparing specimens of vertebrate, that is mammals and

birds. the way they do this is to remove the skin, sew it together in a relatively lifelike pose, and ensure that it does not decompose. >> i am a really big class actress fan, so i am here to see them, and beer week. >> i wanted to learn something and have fun. >> i always enjoy it. i am not all is well -- always working as i am tonight. sometimes i come to enjoy the music and to dance. ♪ >> culturewire covers the arts in san francisco, and one of my favorite culture artists is here tonight. jason, thank you for being on culturewire. tell us about some of your posters that we have here today. >> most of the posters here are four specific shows or tours.

i am hired by the bands or the venue. >> what is the inspiration behind these posters? >> no, disease of the related to the bay and, of course. music -- it is related to the band, of course the musical content or isn't related to the bed. album covers can come from anywhere. ♪ ♪ >> class actress was great. we have been having so much fun. i did not realize how beautiful

the cal academy looks than that. what other events take place here? >> we do corporate events that night on a regular basis. but nightlife is your best bet to come in as a regular person pharmacy the academy at night, and visit with friends. calacademy.org/nightlife. we have details for the next few weeks. you can get tickets online in advance or at the door. >> thank you so much. thank you for watching culturewire on sf gov tv. >> on december 28, 1912. san francisco mayor, sonny jim rolph stared into the crowds of those who have gathered. a moment in history.

the birth of a publicly own transit system. san francisco municipal railway. muni as it would become to be known. happy birthday, muni, here is to the next 100 years. the birth of muni had been a long-time coming. over the years the city was disjointed privately owned companies. horses and steam and electric-powered vehicles. creating a hodgepodge of transit options. none of them particularly satisfying to city residents. the city transit system like the city itself would have changes during the san francisco earthquake. the transition that will pursue from this aftermath would change

san francisco's transportation system once again. facilitated by city boss, abe ruth, ushering in the electric city car. the writing was on the wall. the clammer had begun for the experiment including public transit people. owned by the people and for the people. the idea of a consolidated city-owned transit system had begun traction. and in 1909, voters went to the polls and created a bond measure to create the people's railway. would become a reality three years later. on december 28, 1912, mayor

sonny rolph introduced the new geary electric streetcar line and the new san francisco railway. that he said would be the nucleus that would host the city. and san francisco gave further incentive to expand the city's network. a project by way of tunnel leading into chinatown by way of north beach. in december the first streetcar was driven into the tunnel. just two years after its berth, muni had added two lines. and k, l and m lines that span out from westportal. in 1928, the j line opened

heading west to the beach. in 1944 san francisco voters finally approved muni take-over of the market street railway. by then motor bus and trolley bus improvement had given them the ability to conquer san francisco's hills. after the war most of the street-car lines would be replaced with motor or trolley bus service. in 1947, the mayor recommended replacing two lines with motor coaches. and it appeared that san francisco's iconic cable cars had seen their final days. entered mrs. cluskin, the leader to save the cable cars. arguing that the cable cars were a symbol of the city, and she entered a charter placed on the november ballot. it passed overwhelmly.

the california street cable railway was purchased by the city in 1952. there were cut backs on the cable car system and in 1957 only three lines would remain. the three lines that exist today. in 1964 the cable car's future as part of california's transit system was sealed when it was proclaimed a national historic landmark. in february, 1980, muni metro were officially inaugurated. in that same year, muni received its first fleet of buses

equipped with wheelchair lifts. in 1982 when the cable car had a shut-down, they added an alternative attraction to the cars. the festival was a huge hit and would continue for the next four summers in a permanent f-line that would extend all the way to fisherman's wharf, by 2000 the f-line was in place. and in 2007 muni extended the third line to the southeast corner and returning to third street. for the first time in 60 years. in the course of last 100 years, muni's diverse workforce forged by men and women of innovation have reflected the many cultures that flock to the city.

muni's ground-breaking antidiscrimination has guaranteed equal opportunity for all. the city's policy mandates the course for the future, as they work diligently to increase options and increase multialternatives, and deduce -- reduce the carbon footprint. it continues to improve the systems. during this sen -- centennial year we reflect on the transit system. driven not

>> one 10 this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the investment & infrastructure the successor agency commission to the san francisco redevelopment agency for tuesday, october 6, 2015, welcome to members of the public madam secretary. >> thank you. the the first order of business is item one roll call commissioners, please respond when your name is called: commissioner mondejar supervisor pen commissioner singh commissioner bustos madam chair rosales all members of the commission are present. >> the next order of business the the next on the job ever october 20th will be held on

room 416 b announcements of sound like incompetence please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. planning please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room from the meeting room ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices. c announcement of time allotment for. please be advised a member of the public has up to 3 minutes to address the commission unless the commission adopts a shorter period on any item. it is strongly recommended that any member of the public any member of the public wishes to address the commission fill out a speaker card and submit it to the commission secretary. the next obtained of business

action at a previously closed session meeting no reportable actions the next order of business item 4 matters of unfinished business there are none the next order of business consisting of the consented and regular agenda madam president call items 5 abc and we'll separate item c from the consent calendar okay so the comments will be 5 ab and d >> yes. >> first, the consent 5 a approval of the minutes regular meeting of july 7, 2015,

5 b approving a fourth amendment with 9 inc. for the shipyard art installation project and contract number h p.s. one 14 extending and authorizing the executive director to extend the date as hunters point shipyard redevelopment project area action resolution number 582015 and 5 d authorizing a second amendment to the legal service contract with the thomas law group to increase the amount by one hundred thousand dollars for a total not to exceed one hundred $50,000 to get specialized legals services action resolution number 162015 madam chair. >> any speaker cards for those i do not. >> okay

do we have any comments? okay. so it's been - so commissioner singh moved and i'm sorry i'm sorry so, yes items 5 ab and d have been moved by commissioner singh and seconded by commissioner mondejar please call the residential >> commissioners, please respond when your name is called: commissioner mondejar supervisor pen you. >> commissioner singh commissioner bustos madam chair rosales madam chair, i have 5 ids okay those items are adapt with respect to item 5 c i'm going to recuse myself the law enforcement of slow down is a

subcontractor with my law firm i'll leave the room and sxhooufrlts will a chair that item. >> madam secretary the next order of business is regular agenda 5 c authorizing the third amendment to the legal contract with the sloan and others limited liability partnership to increase the contract by $75,000 for a totally agree gait contract monument not to exceed one hundred/75 to get

specialized legal service action and discussion resolution number 492015 pursue madam director. >> thank you, madam clerk good afternoon to the commissioners and to the supervisor the first meeting welcome commissioners and members of the public back in 2013, the successor agency occ entered into specialized legal services contract with renee slowly we have a continuing need for those serves as we rebuild the organizations and complete the significant work program we have ahead of us with that, brief introduction i'd like general council and jim morales to give us a brief overview of that item for your consideration. >> commissioner bustos and

others i'm jim morales i think that director bohe summarized it succinctly i'll add as you may know that the successor agency over the past 3 and a half years has gone through a tremendous transition from the redevelopment agency to the successor agency and one of the most difficult and important aspects of that transition was our labor related work as you're aware we lost a number of employees at the beginning of the solution process many actually all of us became city employees upon the resolution and then most agency employees 6 mostly later became independent employees of the successor agency you can imagine a number of personnel and labor related

issues and indeed many serious and difficult issues to grapple with in intuitively as director bohe indicated we had a need to remain an outdoor firm a representative our center prior that that oozed the services the city attorney's office and they could no longer provide those services in this context we hired the firm of slooelg and they've helped us to work with the city and the units and the employees culminated in a finalization of two labor agreement the beginning of this year we have moving forward from that point in a very positive way also last year, we had a need to

have a human resources consultant sit in for as a human resource manager that was previously provided by the city and was no longer available we needed to have a h.r. expert specialist at the office and they have non-lawyers that are h.r. suspect we remained that person under a contract separate and definition from the contract what you have today is the contract that combines those two into one that allows us to pay some outstanding bills under those contracted and provide additional you amounts if we need those services in the future a h.r. consultant or a

specialized legal services we've been served well by that as the chief new yorker jeff has many years of experience no labor law and we are also assist by charles a partner in the firm and also with us today is justin who is a member of the firm and very active in the negotiations the attorney r h.r. consultant we've used it is used occasionally jeff a member of the firm but not a lawyer and previously served in the department of human resources for the city and has invaluable experience so i'll strongly urge you to approve that contract amendment and hopefully, we won't need to use those services very much in the future but in

conveys we'll have them available i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> madam secretary. >> we don't have any speaker cards. >> anyone from the public seeing none, public comment is closed commissioners that want to. >> i move. >> moved by commissioner singh and seconded by commissioner mondejar madam secretary. >> members of the public commissioners, please respond when your name is called: commissioner mondejar supervisor pen commissioner singh commissioner bustos and madam chair rosales has recused herself i have 4 ids and one recall. >> thank you that item passes. >> get commissioner back.

>> thank you. >> madam secretary please call the next item the nobd is workshop discussion madam director. >> thank you, madam secretary commissioners really in response to our request to have a dialogue with mta staff to better understand how the city overall transportation policies fit within the major developments in the hunters point shipyard and candle stick and transbay and other points this presentation is a broad

offering overview to inform your decision making efforts and certainly an opportunity to speak with mta staff with that, overview sally deputy director will be joined by mta staff. >> thank you director bohe i'm sally you've heard we're here to provide parking and development guidelines that the city strongly believe that are critical for guiding and development in san francisco especially during this time we're seeing significant growth in to the city so tom maguire the streets program will walk you through walk you through the presentation and give us updates on the near term pipeline projects that mta is working on and what that will mean for transit and other transportation

choices for folks living and working in san francisco just wanted to add that something to keep in mind as you listen to the presentation those are city policies but baked in the development agreement as we worked you know our former agency worked closely with the city staff and policymakers around transit and development guidelines to didn't want you to think this is the city view and ours are different we work in concert with the guidelines and, in fact, what shapes our decisions when we bring decisions before you and bring in the recommendation the right parking ratio or operating policy that should be in effect for the project we look to those principle in our guiding documents and also in keeping

with what the city is formulating right now the best practice we want to acknowledge that each of our project area is a unique set of circumstances when transportation come to our projections we could spend a working group on the projects i wanted to highlight our goal to give you that board overarching view and when we come forward with various romgz recommendations on specific projects we'll bring the neighborhood specific information about what transportation and transit and parking information is relevant that is what we see a kickoff of on ongoing conversation bringing this to you in the future actions but, of course, if there are things you want to keep in mind or specific things to bring

back to you let us know we'll do our best to accommodate that with that, i'm going to turn it over to tom maguire for the presentation we're available for questions thank you. >> okay. thank you sally good afternoon, commissioners it's great to be here and have a chance to put some of the latest thinking of mta to manage and operate and develop our transportation system a dialogue to how it fits in the city's broadly discussion i'll talk about broad citywide policies and transit first, the city's policy over 40 years the prioritization of all trips and vision zero a joint commitment by the mayor, by the board of supervisors and by our agency to

reduce traffic fatalities in san francisco by the year 2024 and this was 10 years good and i'll talk about the zero 50 hundred and zero waste for hundred grossly of 50 percent travel by auto modes we've trial to submit the transit goal with safety and environmental sustainability as well so this is the policy fracture e framework we are thinking how to invest this scarce resources that might fit with our thinking of redevelopment so as we know we're in a rapidly growing city facing recording rates of growth in both

employment and housing 40 in san francisco we know more is coming the region is foist over and over 4 hundred new residents coming to the city in 2025 play a big part it is important to remember as city government we're charged not only with the quality of life and the quality of infrastructure as i said a framework of vision zero and transit first he is those big picture policy goals our accepts have supported over the years we think we need growth we're in a housing footprint r affordability criticize without the housing supply we agree we can't get out of this crisis and yet it is not just the quantity but the quality that matters so

if we don't - if we go down the road with business as usual we're going to have gridlock and unsafe streets and not a sustainable transportation system i've pulled this from a recent growth they use the word gridlock to describe the conditions that could result if 200 thousand residents. we're not thoughtful how we connect the land use development to the transportation to address our needs we need to build the housing in neighborhoods friendly and find ways to build housing that mitigate the impact both new and existing residents on transportation system so all san franciscan those would live here today and coming tomorrow

can be safe and enjoy the public be spaces we're thinking our more and more with the planning department we as the owners of the on street parking supply how wherewith the majority of trips by transit walking and biking and 35shg there's a resource for those but not the thing that is driving our allowing choices and we think that is a path to developing the neighborhoods that are dense and liveable and inclusive for all types one interesting observation that many people have said if you look at the neighborhood that many of us look at the iconic neighborhood were built before the zip code e zoning code with the parking to be built with

each unit they have fear less than parking spaces for every housing units and that lack of parking space is not prevented those neighborhoods from diverse housing types nor prevented them from being vibrant neighborhood if you were to try a rebuild neighborhood like north beach or chinatown today you couldn't do that based on the kind of zoning you'll have to build so much parking and getting the fist for the diversity of population of those neighborhoods so parking is a big factor here parking is important because it takes up space physical space that would be otherwise devoted to housing or commercial land use the average amount of space

that parking taxes is 3 hundred 40 skweetd per vehicle the aisles and the walkways that's a lot of says that a few of the parking spaces you're talking about a good-sized parking unit and likewise it is quite expensive to develop parking and the highland values and the needs for seismic safety is it costs up to $100,000 to build a parking space that is passed on to either us as the public sector with the development or on to the renters and owners of the housing providing the choice to provide parking we also know with we think about the urban design and the vibrant neighborhood we want we want to

find ways to accommodate parking in a graceful way but if we have to look at the parking and the parking design the parking can detract in the quality of the environment and the ground floor retail and the community services that makes our neighborhoods vital and finally we know that people make traveling choices you have park to recipe residents and visitors we get more driving up to a point we'll, accommodate but as the city grows in a transit first way there is a limit to the number of driving trips we can accommodate we're not building freeways or widening streets with walkable and transit friendly students we can't plan a way that brings more traffic into those streets

thinking about the space factor that is a imagine that we often use to just visualize how much space in a variety of ways it is hard to read with the text there on the left you have 60 cars and 60 people in 60 cars taking up city blocks and 60 people with a muni bus to the right you have 60 people on bikes so taxiing up as little space as possible so again more spaces for cars more spaces taken up by cars the less space for life and finally the vision zero commitment as i said we lose over thirty san franciscans on the year every year people that are walking and traveling and bicycling the

centers takes all age rages it is a public health crisis that is a top priority for mta to solve in the majority of those fatalities it is in any way, shape, or form with the driver and we know that reducing the amount of traffic capping or managing the amount of a traffic is the best way to prevent those kinds of deadly crashes if take place the cement it is favoring driving over more balanced transportation choices i don't want to call the status quo we are trying to get beyond in the city we are or even how to provide good choices so we don't want to simply say that driving bad and parking bad we want to say there is a place for parking

and certainly a place for driving most of us need to be in a car at some point during the course of the week but how to have great choices and make those as sustainable as possible we're at a moment in time we have more choices than before expanding transportation and digital operators and making the streets walkable and rolling up car share and bike shares and ways to get around and make them as assessable as possible we've got more transit services mta over the last 5 years has put in place a number of programs to make the transit system for assessable for all residents of the city we have free muni for

youth and seniors and lifeline pass and working with employers and schools and universities to have pays for students for part time employees so we can help people make the most sustainable transportation not every choice will work for everyone you might be a transit rider and someone that needs to use a taxi or uber or lyft are bike sharing but it is important that a number of people have those choices and every eir person makes a choice making the city for sustainable and taken together as we reduce the needs for driving to make the city for accessible by all molds modes we can reduce the need for onsite parking and developments

the great thing about san francisco we know that the distance people are traveling is manageable distances either by bike or foot we ever couch years work with the partners at sfmta and they estimate how far people driving on the afternoon average so the average drooiflg trip it a little bit less than 3 miles every walking trip is close to one mile they walk to shopping or school and the average bike trip is 2 and a half miles when you see for driving trips this is not suburban your we don't have folks taking 10 and 15 mile drives those are trips if there was a safeway to bike people

will shift over the data is the sustainable within the right range for many of over travelers we have some national trends how travel is going since the middle of last decade before the recession driving has been going down nationally a number of factors that are in placing play not all these economic changes where young people get a there later and some people choose not to have a carp more and more people are choosing to live in the city they want to live in the neighborhoods in our city the bay area is actually part of the country where car use is dropping the faster so even more than new york and boston we're

the place in the united states where the rate of driving per capital is dropping the faster we've seen public support for sustainable transportation choices in 2014 we remember number of bond measures prop a which gave mta and our partners agencies close to half of billions of for 10 years in the transit system prop d sports those investments of investments and prop l asked the voter to essential to vote so for more that concludes my remarks was rejected pretty sound likely we're setting records and interesting when real estate experts look at the ass ask residents what are the things you want out of a house or neighborhood the factors come to the top are walkability and

transit people want to live in the neighborhoods it is our job to make sure not just the people that can afford to live anywhere but all residents of the city so that it is not a luxury to walk down the street but the reality along the supply side we're using oversee resources that have been given us to make generational investments the central subway we're in the middle of a bus and rail system called muni forward all the busiest lanes will have boarding access and more trains we're openly bus transit on geary and

increasing this to 2014-2015 just in that 24 month period it matches the riders we're setting rortsdz like bart and caltrain and openly the terminal and expanded systems all really exciting stiff over the next 56 years we're so much is changing are in terms of the network i thought i'd highlight that before i wrap up i'd highly highlight the central waft how the transit are coming together at a place there are a tremendous amount of the redevelopment activity take place we know for years the partners lake the motorbike putting if f in place that are foundations laying and now as

the operating and investing we're sort of building on that here's the map of the transit network and in and arena selma and the waterfronts and i'm going to go year by year what we'll see coming online in 2015 the introductions of the muni 55 bus that provides supplemental direction service with the heart of mission bay campus next year you'll start to see new bart cars the beginning of the opening of the transbay term and the ferry services and the bs r it in 2018 the new blue greenway providing bike activity up and down the waterfront in 2018

2019 two introduce trains a major, major improvement to the discount you been downtown and all the emeralds and much faster simplest in the core of the muni system and finally a long term 2020 caltrans electric indication in the waterfront to the peninsula and regional designations so while the transportation didn't have a long lead times commitments are made with the agency our bearing fruit we're bringing more and more mobility choices 2 to 3 the city this is happening all over san francisco and we're getting help from the partners from the developers and developing agencies interesting things we're seeing coming to the system shuttles and may be was the leader if in

providing a shuttle that connects the mission bay with the rest of the system and many by train subsidies for the workers things like car share membership for new residents from bike parking to we're trying to think of ways to plug into this sustainable transportation our agencies are working together as well so the goal of working investment and those big redevelopment sites we don't want to develop our development in a peace meal way but transit it in place when new residents come to the city they have angle option the way it does displace the operators we want to look at the big picture staff works on the waterfront

sustainability and it helps us to that about matching the land use investment and finally we say mta and our partner of transportation you see we need to protect our investments we're spending billions of dollars we have to make sure that we are making investments and tying them to land use strategies to make sure that residents have good access to transit and congestion is not sloan the busses we're using tools like parking management an urban design to support these those investment to make the system work better for the residents coming here and residents here for generation thank you for letting me take you through a quick journey and look forward to answering any of our questions >> thank you. we need to see if there is public comment first

before questions from the commission. >> we do ms. wendy and corin words please step forward to the podium. >> good afternoon. i'm wendy - since mission bay really had it's - is foundational program

we have over 22 zip cars and city car sharing so people can have a wide range of options as you may know your trip on monday might be different from tuesday and wednesday we have a robust program we have an annual survey i'm about to close our drive alone rate between 19 and 23 percent in the 5 years we've think been in business that is significantly blow every neighborhood in san francisco except the will financial district you know where the driver alone rate is under 10 percentage i believe we believe that working closely with the communities to make sure that we're designing services and multi modes is critical the ability for people to assess those modes particularly we

understand it is a real stretch to find room for everybody around bart station and caltrain stations as those new intense community for us to work for everybody to work we really need to pay attention to f this assess and infrastructure the caltrain station is a disaster not helping with the construction before the construction it wasn't good it kind of rethinking on a global level how to make those better hubs so that all of the pieces of this gigantic policy can avoid contract we're excited mission bay is growing and part of warriors planning we know those new neighborhoods are coming into mission bay to work

and vice versa our residents will be going out to them so we're excited to be part of a much larger organization that is the former redevelopment project areas and to be working with the mooning muni to make sure we deliver good service to our customers at the that's the bottom line thank you and we would like to invite you to come to mission bay and let us show you how the community has changed in the last 4 years thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is corin woods i chair the advisory committee i know this is not you know what i mean on mission bay but a road that are question commissioner bustos asked about blocks to the east i thought that would be important to ask

wendy to talk about the transport plan because some of you are new since motorbike started the transportation management plan for mission bay is robust our problem has been that muni has not kept up with us the extension the 22 down 16th street street was to happy in 2003 we get the interim this year we're still in negotiations for transit service through mission bay south that was to be the 45 and maybe they thought to do do 10 through mission bay and now we're talking about the 11 line we don't know where it is going to go and connect those are ongoing discussions on ongoing negotiations muni has a tough time in the last few years and

moving forward is definitely a step in the right direction we have a lot of catching to do we on the t m a the zip cars and better safe than sorry they're helping us to reduce the single occupancy traffic we have problems because of the giant we don't want them to get worse in the arena comes in from the arena come into we definitely want to reduce cars that means giving people as tom and wendy said a choice so that they, get to where they're going without getting into a car all of these things are working together we'll appreciate having our support to help us persuade

muni to move facility and help us support of the t m a working with the ball park cooperating committee through mta on traffic and transportation around special effort all of r all of these things are going on thanks for your support. >> thank you. >> any other individuals that would like to speak on this item? >> no okay so this is a working group we a commissioner get to ask questions i know that is a conversation we've had quite often but with respect to our various action items that come before us we have strong opinion does anyone. >> commissioner bustos will talk last

welcome supervisor or commissioner, i offer you the opportunity to kickoff questions if you like. >> yeah. this- >> (laughter). i want to thank you for the presentation and i especially love slides 16 about your incentive to get people to use transportation on slide 12 you talked about the transit improvements so my question is well, how bart offer incentives for individuals of different economic status to ride their services as well. >> soy can't say speak too much about those providers detailed fair policies the city if have control over muni is really the carries the vast majority of

trips by san franciscans i think a dollar per dollar the feel free policies are aware for riders it is a good question. >> i'm in about depending on our leaving from within the city the other modes of transportation might be utilize it is a good asset for the individuals to encourage them to use the services and then on slide 3, 4, 532 you talked about the cancerous and better safe than sorry membership would it be for all individuals and how it breakdown a reduced rates or a financial barrier with the entire membership be covered and a certain amount of membership. >> we're seeing lots of innovative models there are the simply an appreciative the

developer gives a discounted membership are zip car membership more robust approaches where might where developer might empties it for lower-income households it is a dialogue we would like to start and keep going with our commissioner about what the right way to provide that choice especially there are barriers for moving lower-income folks into modes like smart phone app and barriers to make that real a work in process but developers finding a way to provide them. >> thank you. >> commissioner singh. >> yes. do you own a car. >> i do own a car, yes. >> (laughter). >> so you're telling everybody

don't own. >> you know, i don't know like i say you know but what are this ratio how many units have one car. >> it depends on the project and you know the kinds of residents that are served by the project so it doesn't you know all those choices we talk about don't have to work for everyone in the middle the city with access would to o one to one is too high other parts of the city it is appropriate i personally find it hard to put ourselves in other people's shoes i own a car but take transit every day but people ride taxis there are a lot of choices and imposing of

modes that people use to get around and likewise other parking ratios it is different in every neighborhood of the city i think what i'm arguing more for let's not assume one to one is right let's serve the population we want to serve with the development projects we're talking about. >> you mentioned that bart and transportation for mta and where i live everybody has a dual cars and we have a bus for example, i live near linking the golden gate park a bus goes there people have lived 20 blocks away and especially the older people we just get where we want to go.

>> right i think the whole point of muni forward program to take the long commutes if from the neighborhoods further out and make it more reliable and the big muni geary boulevards and potrero all about serving the trips in a reliable and faster way we're working on it. >> okay. thank you. >> yes. please so, yes commissioner mondejar absolutely. >> thank you for the presentation a few questions what do you mean can you explain smart parking management. >> during our slide 34 protecting mta investments. >> it maintenance two things a lot of it is mta we manage the

meter parking and permit parking and over 27 off-street parking in the public garages around the city we've tried to give customers when and where parking is available and make sure the price is set rights so it is cheap and no double park it is expensive none will park there and be smart how to use those tools to manage the parking day to day that is our job at mta the developer does it is more about getting the amount right and making sure that is available. >> should we have figures on how many cars are actually in the city at a certain time through our smart parking management i mean just a round about figure of residential parking permits that you give and those who use off-street

parking you know where i live it is you know double parking with a delivery truck and no parking space available then you know parking officers go around and around afraid to get a $60 ticket and so on do you you know how many cars are actually, in the city. >> not a single number but a few we believe approximately hundred thousand stickers and 27 thousand that concludes my remarks in the off street lots that is full during a busy week day but empty overnight and not used frequently on the we understand and thirty thousand parking meter from a hundred percent to the busiest neighborhood and much less than

in a low traffic area so a single number that's the magnitude we have. >> so in south bay i'm going mission bay an issue residents parking permit i see corin saying no there are not. >> you don't have that so how do they get about they use public transportation and passing and car sharing is that how you managing parking in that area. >> yeah. i'll speak for management i won't pretend you off-street parking is an option and mission bay was one of the areas we look at sf park it was our on street parking management

pilot if 2011 to 2013 we looked at bike packing and providing riders with the information we proved you can use it pricing to reduce double parking to reduce circling and make it age so that there is one or two spaces available on those blocks so that's the toolbox we use in mission bay. >> it seems to me that motorbike sorts of the first time is it a model you're using not issuing residential parking permits so utilities whatever is available for public transportation is that the only area you don't issue residential parking. >> the residential parking program is really for strictly residential areas that are under parking structures for some

reason anywhere from golden gate park to telegraph hill to downtown and the tourist attractions so residential parking is not about mixed use we have a mix of office and retail and conveys campuses it is strictly on the residential that are surrounded or a big traffic generates our. >> what are those areas we don't issue residential parking permits do you know. >> there's no it is not a map of areas but we don't puts residential parking on streets that have commercial large mouchlz of commercial land use only strictly residential autopsy strictly residential okay. >> realtime information how do you get it out. >> there's an app and maps on the website that drivers check. >> app i don't think i have

that. >> what i live near mission bay. >> sf park. >> sf park okay. >> download them all. >> we're in the process of kind of rebooting the technology through a circuit technology we are trying to move. >> it would be great. >> if there's more communication i live near the area where or in the area i don't know about the realtime information parking app you first i've heard it and okay. >> it would be great to make that available to not only especially the residents or 0 those who commute the numbers you were saying how many cars in the city most of them are out of town folks; right? who work in the city? >> it is a mix it depends on

where what part of city you're looking at i think the majority of cars traveling in the city are san franciscans traveling around over 8 hundred thousand residents and 2/3rd's will have access to a car so - >> okay. i have a couple of more questions what is t d m where wendy shared that information what does it mean. >> travel demand management if you have a fixed amount of the developments or workers going to a work site t d m gives them better choices trait discounts or realtime's information about transit it could be you know

raising the prices of parking and things like that. >> certainly this is going to be a change no lifestyle for a lot of the residents especially your projection an increase of 20080 thousand new residents in there was a huge increase 200 and 80 thousand less than 20 years where do we put them? >> thank you. >> okay. so can i ask a couple of questions. >> you sure can. >> i want to understand the transit first philosophy obviously it is self-manageable but i'm wondering the transit

first for the entire city or transit first appropriate in the densest part of city and transit first, we'll make transportation our first time priority to make sure the transit is as fiscal and robust as possible. >> so to commissioner antonini's question if i live in a kind of an area folks can have two to three cars it doesn't seem like people are flipping out over parking i live in bruno heights it is very hilly as other neighborhoods that philosophy applies to all of the residents. >> yes. it is not about deathly to the individuals to make a choice but make sure we are giving people as much choices as possible so the parts

of bruno heights but maybe there is a maybe other parts of bruno heights often the 2030 if we beef up the services a good number of people can switch that makes it better it is not again one-size-fits-all it is about truly about making those decisions we're making sure those are attractiveness and effective as possible. >> i live close to the golden gate park bart station it is a short walk to mission so more choices but if you're dealing with time issues then the less more service along mission street is makes it option not as feasible. >> mission w is one of the moving forward barriers making