don't have the overhead for the foundation it really depends on the contractor and engineering what they prefer. >> talking to a qualified professional and see what >> good afternoon -- excuse me, good mornin welcome to the san francisco planning commission special meeting for thursday, may 19th, 2016. i would like to remind members of the public to silence any mobile devices during this proceedinging rho, commissioner president richards. commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner hillis >> and commissioner moore? we do expect commissioners johnson and wu to arrive at some point. commissioners, today on your special calendar item 1 public comment on matters to

be considered for discussion in closed session. i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment for item no. 1? okay public comment is closed. >> item 2, consideration -- consider adoption of motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding matters listed below on your agenda as conference with legal counsel. >> commissioner antonini. >> so moved. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion then to assert attorney-client privilege, commissioner ain'tioni. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis . aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> aye. >> and commission president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously 5-0 and i will now move to go into closed session. so >> thank you sfgovtv so item 4

following the closed session the planning commission will report on any action during the closed session and consider a motion whether or not to disclose any items. >> commissioner moore. >> a motion to assert the attorney/client privilege not to disclose. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners there is a motion there is a motion that has been seconded to not disclosure any part of discussions during closed session commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> and i will report in open session no action was taken by the planning commission okay. >> so no other items on the

agenda we'll adjourn this meeting. >> the meeting is 2016, 2016, disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore

commissioner wu commissioner antonini is present just not at the place at the momentum commissioners, that places you under your is items proposed for continuance pennsylvania street large project authorization is proposed middle september 2016 and item 2 cambridge street the conditional use authorization is proposed for inner definite continuance commissioner further on our agenda we've received a request to continue items 10 ab and 1y69d through bryant street conditional use authorization and large project authorization to june 2nd. >> okay. thank you. >> any public comment on this

item? now 3 items proposed for continuance? >> i do have two speaker cards for 2000 bryant items 10 ab, however, at this time you can only submit testimony on the matter of continuance. >> (calling names). >> hi jordan davis he support the continuance one thousand percent. >> david gibson i support of continuance one thousand percent thank you. >> michael san francisco

counsel most of i have a copy of the letter i didn't produce 7 copies one is short sorry but we also support the tun we wish it were a couple of weeks longer than or longer but can work through issues with the developer if they're willing to come to the table and work with us we look forward to that prospect thank you. >> hi commissioners most of you heard from me way two of this week i support a continuance i was here hoping it would be much longer two weeks i thank you for considering that message coming out that the developer should sit down with the labor and community alliance that has formed more resources to bring to the table and also

has increased needs for this type of project to really be scrutinized considered on all the impacts that will have between this project and the other 2000 luxury units in the pipeline i urge you to consider postponing this further i've been asking for them to sit down building what the chronicle said do mayor was unaware of a proposal for the last month a lot going on in the mayor's office i don't understand i want to sit down with the mayor's office of housing as they clearly are dealing with the developer i want to marry community - help facilitate these negotiations we would like to sit down and discuss we have many, many people coming on their way by the way, we only

just now heard the continuance it grant and have heard that was grand after our testimony please be prepared at general public comment there are a couple hundred people coming i urge you giving us more time beyond june 2nd thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners steve with mary tell on behalf of the project sponsor we don't object to a time longer i understand your calendar we're not in opposition of the continuance thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on the items proposed for continuance. >> my name is rick hall i

support a continuance i believe that a month would be much more appropriate than two weeks i think i certainly agree that the developer and the community should sit down together but i'll also got another southern with the rp e i don't think that can be approved what the information provided as far. >> sorry to interrupt you but at the point in time we can only speak to the matter of continuance. >> i understand. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> well, i'm happy to see an offer that has project that might help to fund perhaps a few more affordable units that make the project an even better

project in my opinion it is a very good project it would be nice if we heard about that a couple dares earlier it is important we continue to the second of june i think the generous offer we'll find out is legitimate. >> what it about encompasses and hopefully without changes to the project as it is new designed this is laid out with that, well with the exception of more affordable units and so i'm going to move to continue to june 2nd. >> second. >> second. >> as well as the other items. >> along with yeah, all the other - >> commissioner. >> you went for all the items to continue. >> well - call them separately. >> items one and two i believe. >> thank you. >> second. >> commissioner vice president

richards. >> just a question for the gentleman. >> you asked for longer two weeks what can you get done in two weeks. >> if discussions are fairly intense and information is adequately forthcoming get quite a bit done with a specialist organizations that may take longer but we may know at the end of two weeks. >> i'll - i will ask of you and the gentleman to coming out to a point you feel like i need more time let us know beyond june 2nd. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> excuse me - i'd like to remind us next week a holiday no ability to influence if it there

are changes to any of the documents they are to be in the department within a significant in the amount of we shouldn't forgot that has a realistic date for the people to talk. >> commissioner hillis. >> yes. i'm also supportive of the continuance a lot of the issues have sorry about that out there and on the table we'll have either resolution or know through is not resolution and make decisions at the commission i'm supportive it urges the parties to work with that goal of trying to resolve this in the next two weeks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items. >> sorry commissioner moore. >> i'd like department to lay out the timeline the decisions have to be made and the documents that need to be filed

in the commission. package i was caught in agreeing to a continuance on a project only to realize that the clause of submittal was impossible to meet with a holiday in between or someone is out of town i want to be realistic. >> because itself calendar of required submittals is the holiday next thursday effects what we do. >> just so you know technique your another meeting not a holiday if there are contextual changes we'll make sure those get to you in advance my sense from what i'm hearing i learned of this today it is probable not architectural issues if there are we'll gets to you next thursday.

>> or the commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to then there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to one commissioners that commissioners, that places you under your your exceptional or extraordinary one item to be route by the planning commission and commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 3 van ness after a conditional use authorization i have no speaker cards. >>

any public comment on one item on the exceptional or extraordinary not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to approve commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places us under commission matters item 4 consideration of draft minutes for the may 5 joint hearing and a regular hearing any public comment on the draft minutes not seeing any, public comment is closed. and anyone like to make a motion to draft minutes. >> thank you, commissioners commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore

commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places us under item 5 commissioners questions or comments. >> go commissioner vice president richards. >> i just wanted to let the public know in your packet this week the 2014-2015 annual report anything you want to know about planning, building and historic preservation i urge to go online and see a copy of 3 thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> also in the packet this week information on possible legislation proposed for short-term rentals and i will assume that will come before us for further hearings. >> i was going to talk about during any public comment. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much new

topic so my understanding we're moving forward on the joint hearing with the mta i've been talking about for two years i'm happy and start on a new topic talking with developers and asking them why are we paying the childcare fee rather than potentially providing oversee services on site and a lot of the time the answers is because no physical ability to have childcare facilities on a lot of the sites because of the rules around how much open space you have to have how much internal exposure and other public uses, etc. i'd like to ask a request for a memo or even potential hearing, talking about the childcare facility and how the planning code and a are building

code helps us or not getting this off the ground more childcare facilities in san francisco. >> okay. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters director's announcements. >> thanks jonas good afternoon, commissioners one of the things we've learned over the years many of the requirements are in state law i'll be happy to separate what kinds of controls versus what the city controls. >> any sf maybe not seen a developer that has a clear understanding of all the restrictions and great to have if in place. >> with respect to the short-term rentals legislation, of course, you spent a lot of time on this last year the proposed legislation is an amendment to the short-term rentals legislation which lives

in the administrative code not not planning code so technically didn't require our hearing a short timeline not recommended a hearing because it covers many of the issues the commission discussed last year and the commission weighed no on it last year and many, in fact, all the substance of the legislation were issues you reviewed last year that was our thought we that we prepare the memo outlining the details but then the board that talk take up this pretty quickly in the next couple weeks and just so summarize to a legislation quickly it would modify - hold one of the things that will do the commission discussed hold the platforms responsible for the outer register we discussed it last year

it would also grant citation authority to the planning department for short-term rentals and provide for penalty and so forth those are issues that were discussed last year at the this commission are the thinking in speaking with the president and vice president we because that was part of administrative code it went back to the board that concludes my remarks. >> i'll assume because the election in 2015 was no a chartered amendment not require a vote of the public to make alternative transportation to the short-term rentals law was in effect it can be done by the board. >> that legislation good evening pass last year. >> i know it didn't pass. >> but i'm saying that you know it wasn't chartered and not

passed it goes to the voters. >> seismic. >> quick point of clarification when you say the citation authority is the department part the short-term rentals enforcement or a separate unit. >> the proposal will the office of short-term rentals but improve the enforcement capabilities. >> thank you. >> on review of past event of board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon commissioners aaron starr, manager, legislative affairs. at that weeks land use they heard the landmark for the alameda integer hospital located on the excelsior outer mission a landmark for the hpc voted to recommend it to the board on march 16 of this year it was

part of the system of emergency hospitals that became known as with an of the most comprehensive in its time constructed in 1933 the alameda was the final piece not system and rendering in spanish is colonial both were designed by a master architect charles that oversee the schools and hospitals in the city a further note the internal are pained in 1934 if i noted person bernard who painted the library mural at coit tower and opening marine corp's by supervisor avalos several members spoke in support and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> at the full board this week supervisor kim's ordinance that allows accessory massage in the north of math arranged district

had its second reading and the appeal for 1066 market was continued there were two introductions of note the first was a note sponsored by supervisor peskin and the planning department to clarify the noirnl exempted from regulations if august 6th and increases the penalties for repeat violation of the advertising signs and shows the time for advertising violation will accrue and penalties that go unpaid the second ordinance this sponsored by supervisor kim and really 1066 math with inclusionary housing requirements exempting certain floors in the calculation of grow floor and transfers the

requirement and has land dedication at no cost that concludes my presentation. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i had a question consideration given to historical recognition of entry dirty harry was filmed there. >> what was the building. >> it was like alameda emergency there is a small emergency hospital on it is an none street. >> already a landmark. >> it already is. >> okay. i think that thank you very much. >> and the board of appeals did meet two items of interest the first 88 arkansas you heard the land use and transportation on march third one of the

components was a unit mix exception that provided the rental housing number of units are nestled bedrooms that don't many even though the current zoning administrator the appeal in in regards the appropriate standards for review up until last year the references was for the various finding the commission must make the same preliminary for part of code clean up and we actually - that was removed those standards don't apply that's how you received and filed. reviewed that we'll be bringing up this correction to put those finding and then related or similar legislation that is schedule on june 16th so a lot of discussion about that at the hearing of the board unanimously upheld that was appropriate he didn't

error in discussion on 66 third street a notice of violation penalty issued last year this was in relation to an action in 2014 that was a legalization proposal to have the conversion from warehouse to office the commission approved it and submitted the office allocation with the commission approval to the upper storehouses of the building using the appeal the appellant was used historically and plagues if 1997 been the same owner since 1962 and 1987 they stated these were the buildings warehouses and grand to retail there was a special restriction and no permit inform establish the office use and a couple of years with a process to legalize the decision no

appeal it was final we pursued the enforcement insuring our decision was perfect and last night the appellant agreed that were treated definitely and we went across the street that had been approved the board had questions why this was different from that the project i need some changes in our policies in terms of pdr and also concerns with offense allocation and doing resources in that important decision you approved that but a small captation in our approval the board last night postponed until december 7th they didn't state the exact reason why part of the two-fold one to give the project sponsor time to address

the violation with the uses and also to see what maybe in store for the property corridor central soma corridor rezoning i pointed out they're not likely to change still needs an office allocation make a permitted rather than a conditional needs to come back before you but we'll update you in december on that item thanks. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> just a couple of questions was a full board of appeals. >> we were down one commissioner. >> it would have been a tie. >> yeah. there were a lot of possibilities but they choose 3 to one vote to continue it. >> and penalties au cutting-edge. >> no penalties have not accruing and will not accrue

until after a final decision in december. >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon tim frye here to share a few items in historic preservation commission hearing a fairly short hearing the day began with the architectural review committee a second living zone and installation across in the art asian museum and temporarily installation the commissioner was supportive of the design prepared by a nonprofit works with high school students and they are developing a design is incorporates a chinese dragon with residential hotel from the asian art museum the second item the adrc provided the comment on revised

pedestrian shelter for the brt in front of city hall as you recall the commission asked the mta to review and restudy a more streamlined canopy and pedestrian structure within the medium to better reflective the architectural servicing and provided a - believes they meet the goals and direction that the full commission gave the mta that item will then be back before the full commission in june. >> then the it commenced with a short calendar one certificate of appropriatesness on saint lutheran church and the

commission reviewed the academy of arts existing technical memorandum i'll be reviewing the commission was supportive of the departments work to date and throughout the schedule the outstanding items we'll be bringing to the hpc was sufficient and particular that was related to the 10 sites that require certificate of appropriateness under article 10 and 11 that concludes my remarks unless you have questions. >> commissioners, that places you under your under general public comment not to exceed 1 minutes at 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 reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes.

there are no speaker cards. >> >> any general public comment? okay not seeing any, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places us under our regular calendar affordable housing in verse did care a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is monique mohan here to recognized the approval for the change of affordable housing for units in the rezoned divisadero and coner johnston when we arrives will provide comments so encouraging in first amendment district or ncd

requires any housing project with 10 or more units is subject to the ordinance it recognizes that any properties proposal on divisadero and be nct that have potential due to the rezoning from the project sponsor choose to pay the fee they'll pay equivalent of 25 percent of unit in the project of affordable units from the project sponsor choose the onsite housing 23 of the units constructed on the project as affordable housing and from the project sponsor wishes to provide unit on offsite in the principle project they shall construct 25 percent of all the units subject to the requirement of 3 or 4, 4 and 5 the amendment the higher rates

from the charter will become effective there are 5 recommends that the department is proposing and reflected in the updated resolution the department staff thanks the departments for brought to your attention and the second recommendation to make sure that the affordable housing fees generated through the development of the december verse nct shall be deposited and the same criteria the proposed ordinance names the following criteria one to increase the supply of the affordable in divisadero and two increase the supply of affordable housing within one mile the divisadero and fillmore street nct and 3 to increase the housing inform qualified housing in the city to date all

affordable housing generated are deposited into the affordable housing fund this allows the city to maximize the funded to increase the affordable housing supply from the funds are restricted to the zoning district it - furthermore this is sets a precedent and lowers the housing for the affordable funds through the department asked to amend it for the use of funds for the inclusionary program recommendation two to create consistency with the affordable housing fees the department recommends that the ordinance mirrors the trailing legislation for the inclusionary housing fee regarding the onsite and offsite inside the project that means that the project under 24 units are under the rate of 12 and

more subject to the trailing legislation the department is recommending the change because as currently written the fees are lower pan than the inclusionary rates in prop c june recommendation 3 - >> the proposed trailing legislation for the charter amendment voted on in june lowers the rates in the per diem depending on when a project is submitted and environmental evaluation or e e the rates are talked about in the slide none are dependent this ordinance is considered didn't grandfather any project therefore, in the case of a project that e has filed triggers a lower inclusionary that becomes effective this june for the divisadero and fillmore

side in the past the department has recommended the grairthd for the projects in the pipeline the projects in the divisadero and fillmore nct are benefiting for the development given that the department recommends that the projects are 50 percent increase residential density to the old nct zoning should be exempt from the trailing legislation in other words, projects that have 50 are subject to the onsite and offsite requirement if a project with an e application submitted has a promoted residential nct not a 50 percent increase in the old zoning the grandfather in the trailing legislation will provide two projects along the divisadero corridor they've

submitted their e e application and more have an increase in the density subject to the higher inclusionary rates the fourth represents is clarifying the determination of residential potential the current charter language the project through a special use district or another legislation adopted on november 6, 2012, receives a 20 percent great or two a 50 percent or greater increase in residential over prior zoning district to increase the affordable housing requirements the charter language proposed own the june ballot not includes this language and allows the supervisors to change it without a change to the charter given the language in the charter will change it references the language and in the old

divisadero and fillmore commercial district will no longer need to do do calculations the final recommendation is to include a subdivision that describes the fees for the nct and nickel and dime u fillmore it creates a new code section in the affordable housing fee given this fee a recommendation is this fee follows the same affordable housing program and a new section rather than a new code section and directs the public to one code that concludes my presentation. and the department asks the planning commission recommend the approval and the attached to that effect. >> and connor is here. >> i was here all along lurking with any friend alex. >> (laughter).

thank you. i want to provide sorry conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. and provide a little bit of background at the risk of what many said pursue in november of 2012 the voters passed prop c that set the inclusionary in the charter and 12 percent onsite and offsite and return to prop c in a second in the fall of 2014 supervisor breed passed the nct along fillmore between bush and mcallister and the divisadero continue hate and 0'farrell both pieces of legislation were supported and the board of supervisors passed p them unanimously and supervisor breed passed the legislation rising the mcd to make them nct matt haney that density will be controlled by height and

unbelievable and open space and closer requirements instead of a ratio in terms of more housing units will be allowed and the planning commission addressed board of supervisors supported those unanimously and here's where 2012 prop c comes into play with the nct there are a dozen helps to create for affordable units oversee are a percentage of the total units you get more affordable housing unit and cheaper market-rate unit without height and bulk for buildings and in that respective nct are a great first step but were supervisor breed want to increase the affordable units and unfortunately under prop c that was not credit card possible and certain exception in prop c in the charter the inclusionary can be increased one, if there is a development agreement involved in terms of a

redevelopment project or an ifd you're using property tax increment and 40 are more acres none of nct are 40 acres a project that gets public finance can have a exception to prop c and the project with a density bonus or if the city as proprietary interest no way to include to increase the inclusionary requirement under the chapter, however, there is one other previously never used provision that says in other legislation or a special use district adopted after prop c with a greater under consideration in the residential flows e glows e gross floor or greater in the residential prior zoning you can increase the inclusionary requirement after a lot of consultation with the

planning department and your director and the city attorney's office as well as in confess of 2015 supervisor breed introduced legislation using that prop c exception to create the highest inclusionary housing requirement in san francisco history for projects with nct areas that exercise the decontrol provisions to get a 50 percent or greater increase in units and using the outgoing 2007 nexus study by kaiser she set the fee at the highest achieveable 25 percent and the - 25 for a fee or offsite and the onsite rates 23 percent in order to have the onsite development within the neighborhoods now with after all that a prologue twice the board of supervisors then introduced a charter amendment in december

that largely undoes prop c this is confusing this is also called prop c 2016 prop c will separate trailing legislation the new rates are 33 fee for offsite and 25 for onsite housing the trailing legislation provide grandfather exemption for projects in the pipeline and it requires a feasibility study to have the rates going forward so as you imagine that is a bit of a moving target not knowing from the inclusionary rates will be cancun from the new prop c passes and the forthcoming be faeshldz this is not the finished product we have working closely is planning department staff to try to

simplify and anticipate the outcomes i want to particularly thank monique mohan and aaron starr for those two obviously developments because she agrees with the policy direction supervisor breed would like the divisadero and fillmore to anywhere the citywide inclusionary levels consistent of consistent with the fees that staff recommendation number one supervisor breed also wants pipeline taking advantage of a 50 percent under the nct legislation to remain subject to the new inclusionary rates and not receive a grandfathering exception those projects have the option of not increasing their density and receiving the grandfathering rate that is staff recommendation number two staff recommends adding the old

charter language for reference we agree indicting to tie in number four and staffs memorandum is area marking for the respective nct hears eras that was a legacy for a market difference between the nct and now appropriate to direct those 0 the stuart housing funds as all other inclusionary housing fees and some commenters may suggest the inclusionary were pipeline within the nct should also be influenced by the feasibility analysis supervisor breed is receptive and other provisions as the prop c on june 7th as the inclusionary ordinance is finalize before those ordinances go to the

wlufks with that said, i'm happy to recommend and thank you for your time and consideration >> opening up for public comment of which i have several speaker cards (calling names). >> good afternoon commissioners affordable december vera learned of this ordinance yesterday and i'm handing out this divisadero plan we oppose this no community involvement great work with the planning department but the community who is most effected by this proposed legislation has not had a chance to weigh in,

and, secondly, the plan does not in must way reflect the divisadero we've handed to you many times i'll leave to other additional points about why this be rapidly changed. >> additional speakers on this item. >> good afternoon commissioner dean with the affordable we need to stop the give away to developers along divisadero without consulting the community we're in round two so some of what that mr. johnson talked about is accurate and some not

after the zion e zoning complained about the up zoning allowing doubling and tripling of the zones without requiring a percentage not some mystery someone can increase the affordable housing requirement when upcoming zoning well known to us and why it took so many months to get the movement from the supervisors office make no mistake as currently drafted this would yet again for future projects would say there is no additional affordability along divisadero prop c passes that will be the standard so the same standard that applies to any other projects will be a future divisadero despite the developers get and tripling of income we want to make sure that

any additional affordable requirements that are part of this ordinances are in addition to whatever the baseline whether 12 percent going forward are the new percentage under prop c developers get a massive increase along divisadero we must insist on the maximum along with the inclusionary and the second point the fees the relationship between the in lui fee and the onsite requirements need to be adjusted so there is an incentive to provide onsite housing that is part of our community plan and as well as supervisor breed office stated an intention to have antidepressant but 23 percent of onsite affordable or 25 percent fee out we know that will create everyone will fee

out with no additional affordable units and finally with respect to existing projects we agree that the increases need to apply i will suggest that the matter be put over a few weeks as testing noted no communication with the community whatsoever about the change to divisadero thank you. >> thank you. >> calvin hate ashbury council a member of the affordable divisadero we support the position of affordable divisadero that is offered to i want to make a comment both connors statement. >> your staffs rotator that is outstanding we can go through a yearlong discussion before this commission with that commission playing and very involved role

the question of density bonus your staff was not informed when applied to this particular case the notion that you can't get an additional affordable housing requirement by granting a large density, of course, runs into the face of the assumes of the density bonus program proposed and advised by your own staff so clearly i mean prop c was clear pointed out to supervisor breed no increasing of affordable housing fee the redundant staff and supervisor breed so do this in the initial case was unfortunate to continue to ignore the request of the community for not only affordable a policy adopted by

this commission your staff by this department but to then ignore all the data in information that you generated in the hearings that you had on density bonuses about the net of having not only affordability enhanced affordability but affordability able to urban design afforded at the neighborhood level not talked about at all in this legislation any recognition that the first name is one of the lowest income neighborhoods in san francisco. >> that the average according to the american u.s. consensus the medium income of households in the western edition african-american household is $29,000 a year none of which can support any of the go affordability levels projected in sxhoodz legislation that is critically important this commission holds this

legislation informs your staff about the exclusions in reference to the affordable housing bonus program and include those hearing those conclusions into our recommendation for regarding this legislation thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment mr. cowen. >> good afternoon, commissioners peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. staff has picked up on a couple of things we flagged when we reviewed the ordinance just 0 reiterate the 22, 25 percent i have the recommends to prop c you have to understand going forward there is an intensely relationship between the percentage for onsite and the fee out because you have to have a level of parities you're looking at a developers choice

we have a fee too low methodology we have an built in incentive but make the percentages closer your geeze guaranteed the out so the original none consented other site i'm clear that is an error on my part or the staff in your staff report an option for fee i see the language in in there also that was out i'd like to, corrected not sure why there is language to give a developer a choice to defer until after construction first section 41 that expired put in there 4 years ago it you look at the expired part of code that's just an oversight take it out no fee

option on that condition. >> and thirdly, i think the fundamental issue on the corridors that started before prop c i will have to say that we brought to staff attention in june 2015 the memo as called existed this was a memo from may 2013 that made clear under the circumstances for fillmore and divisadero staff missed that so this is now a catch up on what could have been done openly on that nct up zoning but leveling with prop c i don't disagreeing disagree are you to figure out how to catch the up zoning i don't know what the

amount the eastern neighborhoods you adopted a higher inclusionary based on the up scoping so the superior court inclusionary two or 3 tiers to recall brat how you catch up that in divisadero on top of the baseline that is reasonable that was the original pretty much purchase of this legislation and shouldn't be forgotten thank you. >> next council of commenters. >> hi commissioner my name is david with jen's sews the developer of this project presently a car wash with transient and retail and bicycle lanes we want to do housing over

structures and try to doing everything we can with design and working with folks all right. met with local groups and plan to continue doing so and be as assessable as possible people have a lot of sight and opinions it is complicated doing a project in the city but somehow we get there at the end one point of consensus is people seem to agree you have a gap within 9 wonderful pedestrian and retail corridor and it that would be great to fill that in how we do that is the question here one of the more creative ideas has been addressed i don't have an opinion but a memo type of approach where that you want if you want to have this much affordability you know this has

complications and i think the planning commission relatively to this site removed the density limits but the square footage stays owe same we don't build for square footage but divide that into smaller units makes that more affordable on the market-rate and provides nor bmr units any request for the commission is simple a lot of stuff to glow treat us fairly as had is happening with the whole prop c there is a lot of uncertainties but people feel you're looking at feasibility study to make policies seeps a as opposed to arrest terror numbers and grandfathering is important because people that spent a lot of money to make a good project happen and file

their e e a shouldn't be discriminates we want to be team players and doing everything we can for the city and look forward to working with you thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners steve for marcille on behalf of the jgenesis - didn't make changes to the height wasn't the requirements so the square footage of projects stays owe same we don't disagree the inclusionary housing application this be reexamined as peter mentioned the eastern neighborhoods could be a new district to increase the inclusionary requirement to 12 percent to 14 plus percent

for a health limit increase in eastern neighborhoods there was a 2, 3, 4 increase in on the district for nct district so a couple of comments first, the organization is not in sync that recognizes the projects in the pipeline with the land decisions bansed the refrigerates and not fair to dramatically increase those requirements rather the projects are phased in pipeline projects are phased into the trailing legislation we've recommended a similar phase in with the pipeline projects second the trailing legislation is a detailed procedure for the city to do a feasibility analysis and the board of supervisors will use the analysis to set the requirements going forward

unfortunately, this ordinance didn't acknowledge the feasibility analysis and instead on page 6 of the origin no matter what the results those rates can't go down under johnson said they'll look at that issue and try to merge this ordinance with the feasibility analysis this is encourage and recommend they do that and unfortunately, the staff report didn't talk about feasibility 23 percent of zero was affordable units and not feasible to build so like i said the problem none has performed the faeblth analysis two 23 or 25 or thirty or 33 offsite until that naturals is completed pretty much to set me rates in stone we're asking you recommend

this is continued until after the feasibility study in july or state the inclusionary levels in 2, 3, 4 ordinance be revisited after completion of the feasibility analysis and the bottom line for david's project the feasibility rates are not set correctly the car wash will remain and not one hundred and 50 units of new housing or any new units thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jim i'm a part of 4 hundred divisadero team advising on planning matters this commission went through a detailed process on the prop c trailing legislation making sure that was fair and equitable and treats light properties light the legislation before you singles out the nct and locks in

the percentage before the feasibility study is done and not include the same grandfather provisions as the rest of the city those areas and projects should be treated like every else in the city the nct zoning doesn't increase allowable square footage not height or bulk it mark farrell allows for smaller units those units therefore will be more affordable so the talk of magnificent up zoning is disingenuous at best i ask the commission recommend 209d supervisors this legislation regarding the nct area be amend to make the inclusionary requirements justifiable bantsdz the feasibility study and sounds like supervisor breed is agreeable to that but i ask you recommend to the commission that it has the same grandfathering

provisions as the trailing legislation from the reason that didn't have those same grandfathering regulations that the claim it is a massive up zoning that's simply not the facts only good planning and fair and equitable thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners tim colen/san francisco housing action coalition. i guess i'll try to key keep to short and reiterate what was said we strongly support the creation of ncts that's good direction to take the city to moving artificial pavshg and a forward thinking planning with that said we're concerned about the 23 and 25 repeatedly on all sides not sure the methodology

to establish that and we think that that would benefit a lot either make if intern subject to the feasibility study dpaips we have a patchwork of neighborhoods with different levels bring this under the process that are laborly talked about in under prop c get an economic feasibility study and apply this we commend supervisor breed for considerably that the grandfathering that was a protracted battle but learning scheduled in the interest of fairness not to change the rules in the middle the stream that is wildly unfair and creates uncertainty for development there have was are rule rule set up with timelines this is

entirely appropriate the nct are great models to be represent indicated in parts around the city that makes sure that you do it right with the inclusionary is set fairly and the rules are transparent so it moves forward quickly thanks. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i thi we need to look at this closely because you're changing a law midstream something i don't like to the projects are brought forward and one set of laws whether or not there should have been more affordability with the height and bulk in determining the density you know that was was the case when the projects were planned and designed so we have a situation in

eastern neighborhoods that does more carefully what they were passed we had a series of tiers of increased affordability and relationship to how much we felt was given in various parts of eastern neighborhoods so we can range from 14 up to 18 we believe in something instances and look at that more graduated situation and the same thing with the grandfathering situation i mean, i think it looks like the staff recommendation to grandfathering is built in up to the 50 percent upgrade in which case no grandfathering all-or-nothing type of situation again i don't think that is the way to do if it you're going to allow the grandfathering blow 50 percent of slightly increases to citywide then probably for a large project you'll have more

but not a huge amount more there is a difference between 48 and 50 percent is not much we have to look at had that carefully and also the state law we're talking about the increased affordability the state law is a court case latino made the point that even if the sponsor felt the recite amount of affordable housing their entitled to a upgrade of market-rate in terms of height and bulk so eventually there will be some litigation in regards to this i'm sure that has been going on for a long time in the state law and has to be part of whatever the city is considering and finally, the

nexus study is essential that he went ahead with the proposal for prop c without the nexus study only thinking about revising it after the nexus study is you know after the election was vote on what we might have in the future rather than you know vote now and we may change it in the future based on what we'll learn with our study first and found out who what is reasonable and then vote anyway i would like to see if there's a possibility to continue this lo although i think there is a timeframe the legislation we have a certain amount of time maybe the gentleman can comment on that. >> is there a timeframe during which our comments our position

can be made and conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. this is not relevant join or i don't think i'm an attorney but not talking about the height and bulk but the removal bans parcel square footage with respect to the timeline we're introduced an extension for this to be heard later because the conversations around prop c and the trailing legislation was taking place it needs to ultimately what the legislation with the staff recommendation does is toy this to legislation that you've already seen and approved which is the trailing legislation and the structure processes. >> thank you very much in regards to that our position on going to be a recommention to the supervisors to ultimately whatever we decide we'll have input but our decision is not the final say on this.

>> commissioner hillis. >> so i agree with most of commenters this needs more time and analysis i think what i've hearing the problem is prop c is complicated we started discussing this and heard in the neighborhood in the supervisors office when the nct was passed we realized there was some value jade by making that change you know whether it enormous or not enormous is yet in my mind to be determined certainly we granted additional density and not provide additional height but we can get to this kind of number or that analysis fairly quickly done in the eastern neighborhoods as someone mentioned we increased you know we took that kind of value difference and came up

with fees for affordable housing increases that i think were a little bit more based on the faefldz that we can do so i'm feeling like we're kind of mixing apples and oranges in the nct and what that did to some of the projects i mean, i know about the rad yarlt shop project we saw an increase in the unit and in the square footage but i think that is what we need to look at the value increased in the land that was what we did in what we're looking at in western soma what that delicate as a inclusions regardless of prop c and you know prop c is happen in a month whether that is approved or not layer in the complexity that is let's do that analysis

with the nct differential and see that that bears and layer in the prop cs work or the outcomes of that after in fact, known but to me we are taking the grandfathering from prop c in the inclusionary from prop c and saying if prop c passes the differences we want because of the nct we need to study actually, we need to study that effects the nct now it is fairly simple given the projects in the pipeline i think we can do that with the neighborhood and the project sponsor but that would be - i don't feel like that's ready for us to make a recommendation at this point. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> so i'll give an analogy this is a midair we know it can land you, however, we'll make the choice to repair it and

distracts us to make that land they'd the danger here i completely agree with what commissioner bobby wilson said do our work up front and wait to see what happens with prop c when we have the density bonus this commission has 3 addendums we have a value and capture analysis i think i heard people on both sides of the political spectrum that is needed and wanted to understand the conditions that is involved in the buildings that are historical and also the last one is community involvement the key to any success of a plan is really letting the community be involved in understanding what is happening so mr. johnson you may differ i don't think i heard a lot of community involvement here i don't think this is ready for us to give a recommendation

on i will support a continuance and support a continuance we made on other issues until after the elect oversees. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm supportive for me not the density bonus but the eastern neighborhoods maybe there is a way to come up with tiers that are related to the change in value essentially and then to add whatever happens for policy later but the first determine the tiers and what the defensive from the nct to mcd ncd i think there is referrals in the language that should be taken out and the grandfathering is this

is only change if ncd to nct in 2015; right? not that prior to summer of 2011 we were operating in a different world and switched to this world just recently and now sort of correct the mistakes. >> would you mind, if i have malcolm heinicke i didn't clarify this. >> referral issue. >> yes. in our code sections 4 one 5 language that talks about the option by the building code that building code section is - and if you read that code section a sunset date for the referral you'll go to the building code and see that sundown in july of 2013 we kept

the planning code language that the sunseted in case we only need to change the building code but no one can defer their fees it is referred in the planning code and sundosetteunsetted. >> when you heard the childcare impact fee is in all the fees that. >> i hear what you're saying on a choice. >> i'll defer to the project sponsor on that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you yeah. thank you imperative for asking the question about difrlz i'll error on the side not concluded those we've seen time

after time that things get confused if there's a sunset in the building code i suggest we keep that there and jump that bridge when we come to it i also agree we're for various reasons this legislation seems great it allows us to go back and take advantage of the shift if ncd to nct but i agree with other commenters we could have provided more information to for about the effects so again sort of echoing sxhifgz we looked at the affordable housing bonus program legislation there was a lot of work the staff did to model the various model projects to show what we will get by adding on the state density bonus on top of the existing

zoning and that was super helpful in terms of talking about the specification of that legislation i feel that is missing here however, and i just want to mention one commenter i have a couple of questions about the cross over to the legislation and prop c and other legislation but i will say let me ask that question first. >> the first one is we had a commenter say you know about talking about affordability in those particular neighborhoods i wanted to sort of make sure ask questions that the reason we passed the neighborhood legislation was applied to projects built in this area so there is a little bit of this protection there and have later discussions whether or not city the medium ami politics to that neighborhood applies here. >> yes. the neighborhood

preference legislation will apply to any project that has bmr or affordable you know. >> and he then i think a large question so my understanding from our discussion at at commission level of the 2015 prop c is that one potential outcome of that ordinance passing and then the trailing legislation or that ballot measure and the trailing legislation that there still the ability to have neighborhood level - so new prop c establishes changes to the taking inclusionary housing program out of the city charter and establishes a new affordable level my understanding even beyond the trailing legislation the charter allows there to be different legislation in the

future that can vary the blow the level of thcyber city. >> mirena burns it is my understanding you're correct it takes it out of the charter and establishes interim controls that are in place until the board passes comprehensive legislation to establish the levels that's what you're talking about as the trailing legislation because that is done by ordinance the board, of course, the board can amend that without a ballot initiative. >> okay. so my attention not to get into a prop c discussion i say that i can be supportive of having an didn't language brown-bag the levels of staesht in 2, 3, 4 large project authorization legislation and what is proposed in the prop c

ballot, however, i guess if we were to continue this this didn't necessarily mean the level of affordability for this legislation has to match prop c in the trailing legislation of prop c because i think that is the good precedent not start right off the bat but the nexus study study with the feasibility analysis there is a good reason to have different levels for those districts i think i can be supportive of that and i will be supportive of having a linkage to the feasibility analysis called for by the prop c legislation. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> just briefly i'm generally in support of continuance the support the majority of comments made by the other

commissions on the deferral option not keeping it in place it expires deferrals are considered under the constraint and separate discussion not on on and off in terms of preference the other issue i'm concerned about is to see just from the timing for the new view the whole june vote goes on step one in baseline and future tiered increases depending upon the increase and density is an independent discussion how and how it didn't apply is a separate discussion any increase in density requires a consideration to what and that's all i'll say at this moment. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i move to continue that to june 23rd.

>> second. >> second. >> commissioners i'll be out of town on june 23rd. >> 30th. >> 30th. >> still won't be here. >> however, a 90. >> 90 day? sorry >> i can take care of that. >> continue until john 30th. >> why not june 23rd. >> the calendar. >> okay. okay. >> as the seconder had a question we also are advising that prior to that time the feasibility study be flatten and the community meetings staff recommendations if it that's okay with the maker the motion a little bit more something more concrete to base.

>> commissioner we don't have the capacity in 4 weeks feasibility study but 4 weeks we'll not have the result of the study. >> i think that is more of an analysis between the in depth to the ncd not a full feasible analysis. >> that's my understanding what the increase capacity will allow. >> yes. that's probably more that's my second on >> imperative. >> okay very good commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded - >> sorry commissioner that was june 30th or 23 puts us before the larger feasibility analysis reading. >> sorry that's correct when we considered this on the 30th that we would maybe make a

suggestion you look at the feasible tie the feasibility analysis to the future legislation i don't know if that's before you. >> i thought we were asking for the difference between the ncd and the nct and undercover officer is referring to the prop c. >> i mean that hopefully, the group will come under that later. >> later we'll still hear this on june 30th. >> we'll know what will happen with prop c at this time does that make sense. >> someone mentioned the eastern neighborhoods and where we did that where we did that change there were kind of a tier rolled to prop c this is more an analogy to that what we're doing with prop c. >> commissioners, if there's

nothing further, we'll move on to a motion there is a motion that has been seconded to continue to june 30th to allow time for community meetings and feasibility study between the nct and ncd commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and commissioners that places us only items 9 ab for the academy of art informational update and case for a memorandum of understanding for any person's that in the audience for items 10 ab for 2000 to 70

bryant street a conditional use authorization and large project authorization those matters have been continued until june 2nd. >> good afternoon, commissioners tina with the planning department as the follow-up to the hearing regarding the march 17 provide a few updates enforcement and purchase and policy recommendations after going over the department's policy recommendations that provide the supporting of the approval i'll go over the project not supportive regarding enforcement as of april 14th the zoning administrator issued a notice of violation and penalty to the academy of art university for 22 properties in violation of planning code they've been by osteo the board of appeals their schedule for hearing on june 22,

2016, this is included with the comments with the eir with the memorandum of understanding so failure to publish those by july 1st will result from penalties of $5,500 for all properties in addition to the potential penalties they are au kruger on townsend with $4,500 and au had the penalties of 3 nine hundred plus on taylor student all au have paid did outstanding fee violations the feedback from the commission with the additional analysis with the reorganized properties into categories we plan to group those by consideration of categories over the course of 6 to 7 hearings since properties of the same

shares quality issues and concerns staff set the projects under one publication while preparing separate - to the loss of housing will be grouped under one application followed by separate motioned for each property westbound the conditional use authorization or planning code amendment some of the 15 properties not requiring action only b the historic preservation maybe brought before the planning department for the staff to off the conditions of approval with the historic preservation commission review or case by case basis regarding 9 properties of aris code amendments two planning code amendments have been submitted by osteo allow the conversion of student housing with the residential use for au

sites and the second amendment to extend the grace period in the valley district and staff proposed the ordinance along with the policy recommendations to the observance by au at the initiation with the eir certification will - as well as the ordinance prepared by the planning department the planning commission could choice to initiate one or two proposals shall we get the - >> there we go. >> the timeline you see before you is the identical to the one and your case packets the final

comments dir will be published before july the staff will bring the initiation and the application of the final eir after the august and september the adaptation of planning code for the staff - for the commission considerations and staff intends to publish those in the following year. >> as mentioned staff has groups a properties according other categories regarding the student housing r student housing the department is unsupportive of the citywide goal to protect the affordability of horticulturalist and require the institutions to meet the housing demand and we would be inclined in support of housing services and located on the site in the

rc with low density building if left to the free market the history resources the structure will result in a single-family dwelling or 3 family dwelling unit the staff wants the student housing be occupied regarding accident conversion of industrial to institution staff is unsupportive of conversion with the pdr space and supports the case the conversion of the industrial use in nature regarding the retail to institutional the department is unsupportive of these goals for active ground floor uses we support the institutional uses maintenance the public assessable active use and situated on the city rather than the city the conversion of office uses the department is inclined to not support those

were the proposed use is ink345sh8. >> excuse me for one second could you slow down look at you're reading kind of fast. >> thank you, no problem. >> regarding the conversion of retail used to institutional uses the department is unsupportive of conversion that detract or take away from the - and supportive of - for office uses we'll be supportive of office space that are incompatible with the neighborhood context or located away from the arising the shuttles over extended we'll support of conversions with the office space in nature as much as the administrative headquarters and appropriate for the section site regarding the last 3 policy staff is supportive of the conversion of

tourist hotels and student housing or religion uses onsite and sites with no changes of use staff is support au has a higher than supportable use or have a used a building in the manner of a neighborhood context should those change in matter the staff is inclined to recommend a change with the consideration action by the planning commission in summary the staff will support of 24 properties and unsupportive of 11 staff was not rented a recommendation for two of the properties under review. >> in the interest of time only properties recommended

disapproval will be highlighted recommendations are preliminary bans the missions found a recommendation are subject to change in time of new information it is identical to the one in the packets the following slides will have colored blue is not permitted by planning code or reference those with the conditional use authorization yellow those requiring the historic preservation commission review and green only requiring the building permits and the requirement is the highest required so it planning code amendment can is are preservation and building permit this map shows the snapshot of the departments represents on all au sites i sites sites in green the defendant is support and red is not recommend

approval and black are the properties where staff recommends is taken stoushz a snapshot staff recommendations powerful think that sites 4 sites distracts the affordability of the city's housing stock and the institutions to meet the dances they generate with the housing so to legalize the following 4 properties each require a planning code amendment to allow group housing i'm sorry each the 4 properties require the proved hours of the property and conditional use authorization to allow the giving up and the rc to the

building permit applications. >> 1080 bush was illegally a property containing 42 units and residential hotels this is converted to student housing and first located in an rc-4 with a nob hill neighborhood 1143 bush was a property containing with dwelling units - was legally a property with one dwelling unit and 14 residential hotels and now student housing student housing it is located in the rc-4 at bureaucrat and leavenworth in the neighborhood pine what as residential hotel now has student housing and it

is a historic in the rc-4 zoning e zoning district in the nob hill. >> and finally sutter street was tourist and residential hotel containing 39 tourist rooms and residential hotels again, the building is now student housing it is a historic resource located in the neighborhood and all of the properties will require planning code amendments conditional use authorization and preservation and building permits moving to industrial sites as you can see from the map staff is inclined to recommend one site and not a recommendation on two. >> the property as 2225 jerold was previously used as an desperately chair and sited in the eir as storage and

accessoriesy office because of the expresses the views as recreational and storage the department is inclined to be unsupportive, however, the academy has submitted a revised application for a fault that is in the pdr zoning district and the department is open to supporting the clvm to section 210 would be required the next two properties on 466 townsend are industrial uses and containing industrial art spaces both property in the western soma and the office space is industrial uses staff is some supportive of those code compliant in nature, however, came to light in stricken out uses are located onsite and staff is getting information on

the properties for both of the properties an intern has an imposed on the conversion of pdrs uses with the conversion of industrial it is not allowed until their lift it expires if permanent controls permit the pdr uses a planning code amendment will be required. >> for the properties converting office to snuggle uses staff is inclined to recommend approval of 4 of the 7 sites recommend the approval of the unauthorized conversion because of the dense from au central core. >> for 601 brandon located in the valley district not structural uses a grandfathering

provision was in the zoning district allowing it to be legalized in 3 years it expired this year human resources to legalize that will be required au submitted an amendment extending the legalization grace period from 36 to 48 months the staff has ordinances before the consideration for the property as well as the residential conversions the next property on seven hundred montgomery in light jackson squad car to legalize the conditional use authorization and again, we're generally in support of this away from the central core and it's capability with the overall district federal street in the mou zoning district the project requires a presently a building

permit and under normal circumstances will not require planning commission action again loekd away from the central corridor. >> stockton is located in b two within the waterfront special use district and the office requires a building permit staff is inclined to recommend approval the final land use will going over the institutional use staff is inclined to be unsupportive of those that provide active use in commercial districts. >> taylor is located in the north beach nct within the special use district and requires a conditional use authorization and to reestablish parking on the second story and the preservation permits will be

required and last but not least is 2801 leavenworth agree historic resource in the special use district with the preservation review and the brimentd applications staff requires a ground floor active use and a lot of information for the time before this preservation as indicated staff wants feedback on staffs policy recommendations processing approaches and preliminary recommendations that concludes my presentation. and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, very much. opening up for public comment >> could - and commissioner president fong we'll continue with the technical memorandum on both

items. >> is that going to pull up good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the board i'll chelsea planning department staff a coordinator for the academy of arts exist g existing. >> also joining me is rick senior environmental planner and

transportation planner and request also shelly who will be providing you a synopsis of yesterday historic preservation commission on the espn members are present rae providing with you a brief presentation following this presentation the item before you is public review and comment on the au draft espn it is published open may 2016 and the thirty day review closes on june 3rd due to the fact the projects are evaluated under ceqa from the existing conditions at the time of the publication of the nop past actions eve they occurred one way or the other without objecting the permits are existing companies. >> conditions it provides the

h of those past actions au draft complains the environmental impact of non-permitted work of 40 au properties and recommend conditions of approval to remedy those impacts as a reminder 6 sites were evaluated in the draft eir out of the 34 exist sites 28 riders discretionary and 4 changes of use and physical work prompted without the benefit of permits and combines the 34 existing sites as well as the individual environmental effect of 28 seats for the discretionary he approval it's different in that the recommended conditions of approval will not be a requirement unless the planning commission chooses to adopt

those conditional use the permits or any other approval it has a transportation and management for all the properties and future opted out properties the discussion of each existing sites will be appropriated to the commission in subsequent staff reports in entitlement application examples of the proposed conditions of approval include typical historic preservation conditions of approval things removal of legitimate the replacement of secretary of interior standard complaints and removal or placement of awnings removal of illegally installed vinyl windows and approving security gates and grills. >> typical transportation to

demand management conditions of approval include removing you think use shuttle bus zones and relocation for biennial parking to admonishment the pedestrian around fences and onto the bus shuttle areas and relocating all flag stops that are stops where doushlg double parking is occurring. >> staff is recommending focus their review on consistency of au site description, the appropriateness of those conditions of approval, and accuracy of the environmental impact analysis for the exit sites and the draft transportation management plan i'd like to remind the speakers

this is not a hearing to consider the approving or disapproving the approvals will follow your comments should be confined to the accuracy and adequacy of the analysis in the draft i'd like to request that speakers speak slowly and clearly the court reporter can create an accurate transcript and folks estate our name clear informing for those interested in writing or by mail or e-mail submit your comments to the environmental review officer by 55 m june 3rd and remind the commission we'll be returning in july for the consideration of finally eir and the final espn

from the final eir is considered. >> that concludes my presentation. unless the commissioners have questions i'd like shelly to summarize the historic preservation commission meeting yesterday on espn. >> hello commissioners shelly from the preservation staff of the planning department mile comments are brief as you've heard made comments and generally unanimous argument on agreements and commissioner johnson the sutter street could be counterfeited by researching that and commissioner hasz asked the pertaining to keep up the

legalization the project site and that concluded their comments i'd like to note that 10 the project sites before the historic preservation commission for various legalization approval for either certificate of appropriateness or permits to all and commissioner hyland was absent and i'm available for any questions. >> director rahaim. >> thank you, commissioners to wrap up the staffs presentation first of all, thank you to staff to put together that chelsea this is the first time we've done a report like this is a eir not an - and tina for putting together this great staff report it lays out the staff's recommendation on that point and

shelly on the preempt this is a lot of projects coming at everyone at once i appreciate that with respect to tinas presentation i want to summarize what we are asking for feedback on pages three and four of the report our thoughts on the policy recommendations and why we recommended what we have on the various projects so there is a series of policy directions and recommendations or policy basis for your recommends that's one thing i want preliminary thoughts on those if that's the right basis for the recommendation and second, of course, is the actual recommends on the properties that the properties is tina highlighted in her presentation they piloted the ones we're recommending so we are recommending preliminary this is a preliminary recommendations we'll make the

final recommendations when the projects come to you the way in sum we're recommending of the 34 properties we would be currently inclined to be unsupportive of 11 based on the policy recommendations on the basis we pointed out on pages three and four of the report so 11 and in our current thinking being unsupportive so to sum up asking for your feedback at this point and for future use thank you. >> now opening it up for public comment (calling names). >> oh, the academy wants to - >> you're with the academy or representing the academy. >> okay. great.

>> i can put it right there on the rail. >> i said i have 10 minutes; is that correct power point. >> very good commissioner president fong and members of the board and director rahaim i'm zane with morris pleased to be here to represent the academy of arts university it has been a its been a long time coming now we have an opportunity to actually discuss the inspire project and the project sponsor the project sponsor is, of course, the academy of art university it was established in 1929 right here in san francisco and to train work and employ working artists in san francisco

working artists in san francisco to 2000 open site arts and faculty and staff and about 8 seven hundred students 45 percent from the bay area and 50 percent from california it is a fully accounted it has a fully accredited universities the first one is, in fact, the au crediting body from the

universities. >> it even has it's own team which is quite success the women's basketball team and students alumni and faculty and i won't go over them some of them are created the winner of the first prize the academy awards and identified by forbes and truly they're making their name for themselves and for the academy installation wards and accolades in film and after all design this is in the context of an urban campus not a suburban

campus and not something that was granted land in the last century to build out over rolling fields it was woolen into the fabric of the city as from the beginning and similar to other inner universities in discussions will be that point i've heard from a number of people the way the nypd is placed in manhattan as opposed to the standard way many associate with the large campuses located in a suburban area a steward of historic buildings many of the buildings were acquired by the academy and preserved and kept intact because the academy acquired them when they were disused and

damaged or in disrepair and great example of that the stained bridget million dollars were spent to renovate, upgrade the seismic capacity that building and also to restore the area right before it was pretty close to lost altogether in addition it provides a thoughtful adjunct to the transportation for muni that muni is a primer way the students get around and through the campus shuttle system that is had not been you get and according to city staff is, in fact, improved significantly so that's a little bit about the academy let's talk about the project what is the project the project is really