out you can't i'm assuming you may not have that flexibility i agree we need to look at vacancies we have a vacant should we have who is affording a tax where 24 percent of units are being owned by a investor lastly i think from a data in richmond point of view it didn't tell the full story i know that several people brought that up i have a two or three bedroom house each bedroom is 200 and 50 square feet you around it a 5 thousand square feet home that's not affordable to the kinds of families we want here we welcome everybody firefighters and people teaching our children and safeway helping you out you

can't have those kinds of monster homes they're not affordable but only to the one percent i think when i met with supervisor yee yesterday i appreciate the time he spent with me size matters let's talk about size and affordability the go toblt that is a difference on the residential expansion the existing residential expansion for good reason and then speculation so we're seeing i mentioned to supervisor yee we are seeing relatively affordable homes going for two or three times the square feet so we have to as mr. cohen said we're a pufb funded houses with a private sector that is pretty much the wield west anything goes we've seen that up here

there's a difference between existing homes like supervisor yee where his children moved out and two adults with two extra bedrooms and the bedrooms and three bedrooms we approved who is living there is there a family there er not two professionals i look to see the household toyshops it is startling that most of single-family homes don't have families i want to say thank you supervisor yee for showing us another lens to what we need to change we need to work on those. >> thank you commissioner melgar. >> thank you also to supervisor yee i have enjoyed talking with you and you

and the planning team thank you for all your hard work and the quantitative data i when when i worked at a mayor's office a furious they were using the bmr program and affordability is a lot of what drives families in making those choices but not the whole story i remember folks at choosing the san francisco loan program that was harder and more expensive in many cases because they didn't want to be in places where bmr were built and also didn't like the size of the bmr unit even when we were two bedrooms and three bedrooms size definitely matters but proximity to schools and parks and proximity to other families is really important we're social beings we like to be close to our friends and people that can

pickup our kids at school folks are raising kids in the city know; right? you become friends of the parents with kids and so there's a generational change that happens in neighborhoods and you know when neighborhoods are zoned for a single-family homes and folks age and the kids leave that school and that neighborhood will suffer and many of the schools close counsel a relationship between those communities institutions and the zones in the neighborhood i will encourage us to think about that i'll be interested in a report on density like schools and community centers the fact of having childcare didn't stop at the age 5 your kids get out of school and 2 and in his own in

the places to take them and so i would really encourage us to have all this wonderful stuff to be working across with parks and rec and with the community and nonprofits to get the full picture of what it is to be a family-friendly housing city and two i think that is much easier to you know deal with density near parks because such as expensive you know to build a new park to look at how we can change things and currently the development of family-friendly housing around community facilities thank you very much for having this discussion i would like to add there are you know cultural differences as to what people view and i as family-friendly in my can

remember having extend families is what makes a family i'll encourage in this you're doing an equal active analysis you try to get diversity points as to what families need and again, thank you very much for taking this up. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i thought you were going to speak thank you supervisor yee that was the most amazing topic to kickoff the new year i can't thank the department enough for taking up this including the right away of comments everything is so spot on i'm totally blown away i need enjoyed i believe that creates an immediate mandate for us to run the definition of family-friendly and to lien on

some of the comments voiced by mr. dulavich when resonate that is the mandate for more family inclusive neighborhood planning perhaps an overlay on the existing neighborhood plan and neighborhood and area plans on defining walkable neighborhood what that physically means i'm interested in reexamining transportation to the neighborhood for the transportation accommodates of other family-friendly assisting modes like the big buggy the kid in the front or the back of the broiblg that requires a different attitude how we deal with the structure not to talk about more concise limits where we need to be it should be different including for us to have a handle on the definition

of family i've asked the question for 10 years in a row when someone comes in front of the commission and a huge gather of the home the person nobody but a mega mansion is a attribute of the family-friendly home not to speak of a 6 hundred and 50 square feet bedroom in a claergd home i have to question the sin it i has nothing to do with is family-friendly what is interesting for me the question of the right sizings right sizeing up and down i'm

interested to see what other cities do in the department to look at the phenomena and particularly 90 percent of all hours that rental in germany it is incentive listing downsize from baby boomers their encouraged to move into apartment and homelessness that have three bedroom units and 4 bedrooms for larger families we - i'd like to have the department look at this and see if there's any parallel and right sizeing unit there is indeed as mentioned the recatch of airbnb but there is also an attention to look at housing and support for alternative housing

not just affordability but also groups of people who still want to remain in the city no effort to chaplain senior housing as part of former of housing that is supportive of idea of family-friendly housing and again senior housing in neighborhoods people try to age in place but as commissioner melgar described i'll in full support and existed i wish we have had a meeting on the subject matter. >> just a question for staff and i echo the comments of my fellow commissioners on the data it seems like most of it came from sensitive data that kickoff gives you data by track do we have data on new unit kind of

the bedrooms we're requiring 40 percent of two bedrooms who is living there is there a family living in them and who. >> to get this the unified school district has that where their kids live we can see that and, see where sfusd live through that lens but it is protected information so we can't ask a developer they can't give us that information we want to keep a unanimous i can bring that back. >> this is critical in that discussion why if the speculation is right we're building two or three bedroom unit and there are families i think there is a size issue

small two bedrooms is that - i know we grandparent with that issue about cars and cars in the right ratio i know in my own kids school our kids i think there are 60 families one or two that are carless in a public fifth grade school that is daunting to hear that there are more kickoff kind of taking advantage i think there is the levy playground not a playground right there i basically have to leave work to get there to the playground it is tough and get to the issue of walkable community and open space is not all crazy we need ball fields and play fields around the

neighborhoods in the city that would be great to get into that data and see what we're building is why people with families are not living where they are. >> i don't know if you saw the transportation survey it sounds like i'm happy to pass that i thought that of helpful to fill in more of the story how people are getting around and the challenges to getting around as you mentioned yeah. >> that's a great piece and is there anybody i think the existing housing stock that was mentioned with a 3 flat much anymore conducive to expand the size to two bedrooms unit and to building but overtime are families living there i know where my kids were born now 3 roommates is there any way to have incentives for families to occupy those units that are

family-friendly. >> i haven't thought about that i guess i have is thought a lot about where we have a lot of families now so the family-friendlyness of some of the neighborhoods with the sort of the families wanting to be around families and that correlates with the sfusd data with the new sfusd kids live does that make sense? you're seeing more people living in the unit than downtown so their it starts to make sense they're living in the south and west and often more schools and parks and stuff in thinking through those in those neighborhoods and how that style as i mentioned the style of living like a couple of - how much conducive because of

factors working together to make that you can imagine that area. >> mr. dulavich mentioned a survey i don't know where his data came from but obviously one of the issue is that consistent with what you're hearing and seeing in data is there expansion of that to see a laundry list of why families leave. >> so i do know the dcyf did the report i think somebody in my shop maybe - i that - i can only say that make sense the affordability is a huge issue i think that the other things but i think as mentioned sort of other quality and not the only thing you think about we grapple

being in the city there are other reasons to live in the city. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> one thing i forgot to mention it is striking in the presentation if you look at the map of what is rh1 and rh2 the amount of families 75 percent of city that is subcontractory on the 50th floor you can't see the kids a lot of the family-friendlyness in the presentation is applicable to the places we can't do anything about maybe in density bonus light we can increase the density without this might do the trick supervisor yee's has a rh1 and rh2 in the third rail we

can do to gradually and show the merger it is solving the public policy rule. >> knott's berry farm. >> sorry sort of follow-up on confirmation one other comment and i think that that would be great in future conversations to flush out the philosophy around families in urban settings something wrong with the tower i think urban design group especially, when i have families in the city you have a majority of working household with the model of a parent washing dishes at the kitchen and watching the kids play in the background you'll not have with the families they want to be close to work it is go to think about how we configure our spaces for families with different set ups you might call traditional

setting. >> thank you supervisor yee for your leadership we look forward to implement some of the ideas out of this report the commission will take a break until 3 o'clock and pick up with itemwelcome back to the this is the regular meeting of the any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on item 14 xms mrooshgz in the ballot proposition x a planning code easement >> diego sanchez on

december 8th you heard the public comment regarding the ordinance as you recall the ordinance will provide landmarks or building with the exemption with the cu and replacement for the conversion of pr spaces their established in the planning code and as long as proposition x in our deliberation one request to have the ordinance heard before the commission for the - yesterday the ordinance was about the hpc they voted unanimously to recommend approval for the ordinance they accepted the two staff recommendations the modifications meant to clarify an easy of limitation rejected time limitation of conversion to 55 square foot and the landmarked buildings the historic preservation commission reason those older buildings already suv are difficult to

adopt and should provide as much flexibility to the owners of the building and helps did economic be liability and allows them to continue and additional letters from the public one from peter and one from sfmade providing those two you as part of the public record i understand they were e-mailed to you that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions april from supervisor kim's office is here. >> good afternoon, commissioners happy new year. >> this is my first time back if the commission good job to sxhofz and commissioner fong who is not here and thank you, commissioners for reviewing this legislation i think that we and the periphery has very much valued

the discussion around proposing x this particular case of exempting national landmark and see i think the discussion from last time was you know you all wanted to hear if the historic preservation commission and he appreciate hearing the discussion from the historic preservation commission as well and i really commend you all for the need to balance the different sorts of important things for the city and while they recommended to not take the staff recommendation to have that limited to 50 percent or 49.95 our legislation is in response to the issue we want to see adapt active reuse in the

historic building but with proposing x want to say the preservation of pdr spaces in the buildings in the neighborhood where the buildings are located so we certainly will take their recommendation and we continue to deliberate on this legislation that moves to the board i hope with our support but the way the staff provided the staff recommendation is drafting of the legislation attempts to balance a desire to maintain and provide some resources to maintain the historic building but preserving pdr spaces and art spaces as well ♪ building that is obviously very, very unique and this legislation is intended to put for the discussion about historic buildings but it is

narrow enough to address what is an issue but we can continue to have this conversation in the future thank you very much >> thank you we don't have a project sponsor, please. >> but open up for public comment spike and maria and if others wanted to speak line up against the screen side of the room. >> spike. >> hi commissioners a couple of you don't know why i'm wearing this hat i'm against the big busy business and millionaires running our country and against legislation that will benefit one guy and armory in front of the historic preservation commission yesterday and the president of that commission is law firm

represented the armory how business people will will today business policy is of great concern to me this armory was pdr they knew that and now put 5 to seven hundred office workers on the corner of mission that will change our neighborhood the building is a amazing currently arts there now it could be an amazing arts complex the size of which would be such a critical asset we will then have art space in the mission about that is decimated by this the ghost ship fire took a big issue we had approaching x pass by the electorate and this traim legislation i'm not how many

people understand there was a backdoor that recent exempt like the armory in the mission alone 3 of our sites that be effected by even though trailing legislation for proposing one the office factory that has pulled their permit they saw that proposing which direction happened and the access development would be exempt but agrees to put pdr and the armory the armory is not the greatest of neighborhood but can be and we really don't need the back corner of 15 and mission gentrified with three or four new high income people into an area you saw what 45e7d with the nuns the new people don't like the old people and serving the immigrants that have made the

mission their home bringing more folks inlent to against the people that have been living and working that is what happened with letting that and nullifying what proposing x can do please don't weaken it you. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> i'm rick hall you probably know me worked with the mission folk a lot of i oppose this legislation as those with the 20 organizations in the that are might be to save the mission if it is forwarded you should consider substantial changes do not allow the exemption from the cu be clear that is about the armory the armory is a unique building

that could be a key to success or failure of the mission gentrification fight and the loss of mission the final plan for the armory serves deserves a full planning commission input and hearing the communities voids don't exempt it from cu what we're on is an incremental and easy path to a bad outcome the armory was exempt from eir based on a long past outdated stale eir and a permit from the entertainment venue that one of the historicer commissioners said yesterday described a disaster for the neighborhood then the other day all the pdr jobs to hfa in a to

make way for hire property now this legislation supposed to put the armory on a path to office office for what? office for who how does this fit with the objectives is so many office necessary and desirable a future cu will allow you to get those answers and more. >> yes there may be a future request for large cap or small but an incremental step to office that steps down the path from the legislation imagine the alternatives for example, in light of the well known displacement of artists musicians and theatres and nonprofits from the mission and in san francisco and in the wake of the got off of ship fire

consider a 0 process that is partnered with the nonprofit and armory to create a home for many of the create actives with a venue on the site this is a the unique ability to create a wonderful space and for those creative forms rather than primarily sterile office keep your mind open don't let if go down the path to office. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm the project manager here to read a letter prosecute our executive director she couldn't make it here today it readers dear commissioner fong and supervisors i like to voice any support for the proposing x trailing legislation that allows for a historic building i'm a mission resident and

worked here since 1985 with the mission base nonprofit organization dedicated to promote economic and self-sufficiency for all san franciscans to training and employment opportunity western established in 1965 and helped to serve the mission district in addition we are the armory next door that both mission street and julian avenue it is compared to historic resources like san francisco repair work by not exempting this from proposition a the owners will be unable to generate the income needed to main the building this is is a scenario we'll see the beautiful building fall into disrepair the san francisco

armory is an amazing piece of architecture needs to not fall into disrepair and many urban designs upgrades let's keep them functional to exempt them from proposing x. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is marie you know that prop x passed what's point if someone will come along and monkey with them. >> it's your job to enforce the worries about of the electorate not the few to grandfather their buildings and commissioner vice president richards is said earlier containing the system once again it is the have and

have not's the point of the prop x to preserve p dr to exempt the purpose of prop x god i can't read my own writing turning presidio into important office space recognition this grandfather clause for what it is an exemption paid for the wraerth building owners if can buy change i want to say once again support prop x the other thing this is a historic hearing they had nobody talking about the anti about - the armory and when peter stood up to say we wrote prop x would you like me to talk about it no public

comment so nobody there the hearing was a done deal and the person didn't recuse himself in the vote even though he's the architect of record for the armory what's going on? let's honor the spirit of prop x and reject the notion the armory can do whatever it wants we need pdr space let's keep it as pdr space thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> peter and today, i'm speaking on behalf of the agency and annuity to save the mission i want to say to reinforce the mission 21 community groups

oppose this legislation we don't think that is well moaning and not the right way to get at the set of problems essentially a historic building the largest is the armory we have been talking with the armory and like to seek a much for positive clean outcome by working with the city to make this we think a really great maker arts performance and their underway what they were mavrdz this is what we think a great community outcome it is doable in that light we think we have serious concerns especially with the contact to go back to the context of those two blocks alone the receipt of two large-scale working-class blocks there are; right? and literally between the monster proposal the

large proposal across the street and this office proposal which if it went forward in the historic preservation commission proposal could bring to our calculations seven hundred and 15 workers that will be their office workers making 2 to 7 times as much money as the working-class families that's the context there are 11 projects on north mission street of concern many more there are 11 we're looking at we do think we're opposed this legislation but part of the it we don't see any reason to keep a cu in place that would be helpful in terms of review and we're concerned about every 10 years someone can come back we include the office space of 50 percent bus thirty percent accessory converting that our

calculation you're down to thai percent and do you only to 7 percent after thirty years to phase out our pdr acquit rapidly so, yeah i think the historic preservation commission is - in light of the fact if you review the video they don't understand how it works and we ask you to review there was a lot of confusion how this legislation even worked we ask you to oppose this legislation and please support our effort to turn this into a mixed use pdr space. >> thank you, mr. martin. >> good afternoon, commissioners fernando about a concerned citizen i'm not going

to speak for or against the exemption by to waive a question that came up for you in the discussion about density bonus program at 12th street what is the value that is being conferred you change zoning when you gave exemptions to particular projects peter spoke earlier what is the vision here beyond you've previewed which is the creation of an entertainment venue and armory a new tech hub you all have discussed how the city will grow where you want to direct new tech jobs along the 5 street corridor is that something you want to direct to the northeast mission but with the industrial area now the developer the owner is noting a great value con inferences

you've known that building for a while used to opposed by the city and requires a lot of work to for upgrades and i think that is a claim by the owner we need to do this in order to bring this building up how much do you notice to give and how much value is conferred and value back to the community those are big questions that are questions of economic feasibility and simply writing an exemption doesn't give you that the other thing that is important if our creating then this tech hub how are you transforming that area there is a lot of working-class homes in that area up and down the alleys there are adjacent to this if you bring 2009 workers here what does that do to the

gentrification and again, i think you're in our role as the planning commission and planning directors are locating where to locate those jobs within the city is it the appropriate placed and lastly how is that 50 percent as the exemption or and 10 years another 50 percent is there a clear rule the owner understands where the value is conferred the upgrades to the building to bring it up to code and the planning department understand what that building will be used for in the future thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> my name is scott weaver i'm wearing my lawyer hat today and mix things up a little bit i

want to direct your attention to what you're considering you're not considering the armory directly but who to have a policy that exemption projects like the amounty and others from conditional use review it is about the armory but not about the armory if they get it they'll get the conditional use without going through the conditional use only through this process your asked to allow 50 percent pdr conversions in historic buildings without public review you're being asked to ignore the popper sent times of the pdr that represents proposition x we came up with a one-size-fits-all policy

but one-size-fits-all doesn't fit all each building is different in the nature and location, in the businesses that the use that is being replaced and the uses being proposed i think this is irresponsible not to take those take a look at it and evaluating the pdr conversions like i said everyone has said is an important policy obviously objective the department and voters i think all of you have articulated the merits of a particular conversion would rely on a number of factors size of the conversion, what kind of pdr is replaced are you replacing studios or

respectfully artist space or respectfully a garage one-size-fits-all doesn't fit all what's the proposed use office use as people said magnificent retail use but passing legislation is not our responsibility to evaluate those effects what neighborhood is it? this is in a neighborhood that is right near like one of the biggest traffic disasters in this whole city south van ness and de bois blocks away will increase traffic are you going to want to evaluate that passing this legislation you're saying no, we don't. >> thank you

is there any additional public comment? >> - commissioners good afternoon reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of off the armory and peter will be speaking next this is an incredibly important piece of legislative for the armory no hiding the fact that is an important issue specifically for one of the largest privately owned landmarks in the city this is an extremely important building we know the history the historic preservation commission yesterday in having what i thought was a thoughtful discussion they recognize the fact that the historic buildings like this need flexibility and the ability to pay the master bills to reconstruct the building as peter will talk about i think that is a balancing and that is, i on the legislation struck a rough but

about fair balance 50 percent of the buildings can be converted is not converted today, you'll on opening of door we know we have more to do the project to get the armory whether 50 or 60 thousand square feet will be before you to grant or deny that the flexibility that the historic preservation commission talked about a lot yesterday is the core of this we absolutely support the you know the change to prop x it fixed i think something that maibt maybe a consequence out of prop x not put on the ballot but people understood this is a problem for big buildings i certainly hope you'll agree with the historic preservation commission and forward to the board with recommendations to go forward and pass the 50 percent you

know, i understand there would be a quibble whether it is 50 thousand or 50 percent of square feet the delta is thirty thousand square feet if you look at the armory and i think of that is a 50 percent this give us 80 thousand square feet and likely 50 percent given the prop m can be converted you'll have a situation the reality is you're going to be presented with a 50 thousand office conversion with another flexible thirty thousand square feet that is of value to the community with a different attach are used by sticking with the 50 percent and not squeezing that down as recommended will be helpful director dodd if you cap as 50 thousand square feet that will be working but doesn't present other non-pdr and office

uses that might find a place in the building so appreciate it thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is peter i'm the owner the armory an 14 and mission the armory has one and you wouldn't thousand square feet of pdr without the trailing legislation we can't change that we can add square footage to the building this will make that hard to renovate, upgrade the building over time i have no appetite to put more than $50,000 square feet to the building this 50 thousand square feet is up two floors and so, however, i agriculture with the 50 percent as opposed to to 50

thousand when down the road make th that the than office it to could be retail so that's difference is i think that's again, i i'm lucky to get the 50 thousand by no means a slam dunk you have to approve that overall this is important for the same reasons i've mentioned as incredibly expensive building to maintain and operate to own 16 millions of upgrades is more than a safety standard for instance, no fire exits needs someone to build 3 shafts over the roof to the basement to make the affair exits so people can get in and out of the building it means a sprinkler system and on and on

it looks like the rafts will fall off meetings need a new roof the quote is $720,000 to replace the roof i want to rehabilitate this to the standards of city hall this is is my dream this trailing legislation will won't give us an entitlement but to potentially get an entitlement in the future to make that possible in other words, to make that usually for pdr and pdr tenant a lot of money needs to be invested $15 million on the basic entitlements i can borrow that and create the office space but also the pdr space as it stands in the basement and on the lower floors there is space but shell not for pdr uses it was unsuccessful in the past but

we'll believable to update this in the future. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment public comment is closed. and open up to commissioners. >> maybe i can, ask questions what's the underlying zoning it is the limit. >> mixed use. >> what's allowed if you can convert to office. >> with an office allocation yeah on certain floors. >> okay. and there was reference to the 10 year limitations can you explain. >> the prop x and the proposed unit has a 10 year limits on the exemption so you'll for

instance, if you will, to use one of the exemptions that's included in this promoted ordinance. >> staff has recommended to keep that in the ordinance. >> that's right. >> okay. >> thank you i mean - i have worked on this building over the years in city hall and seeing kickoff the struggle that people had to reuse this building at one point proposed for hours in the main building which i think would be difficult given the lack of windows if i can ask you a couple of questions on the building it's the one hundred and 60 thousand square feet is it the. >> the building overall is nearly 200 thousand square feet but 40 thousand square feet was converted. >> right your plan to continue

to use for transmitter. >> the one hundred and 60 thousand that remains. >> $160,000 square feet in the basement maintained as pdr and the remainder is above ground we ideally we want to come back and talk about the 50 thousand. >> what do you think your plans are for the remainder. >> primarily artists on the second floor potentially second floor i have to move any production out and the ground floor is pdr type activities it is accessory to the entertainment for entertainment cooking food and types of pdr activities in the portions of the empowering adjacent to say

25 thousand square feet. >> right okay. and ground floor you talked about beyond pdr and . >> right a room on the ground floor it is 2000 square feet and where the offices will have the food and refreshments we could put a cafe if we're lucky to get the entitlements in the absence as proposed with planning department staff recommendations we'll not have the small cafeteria that would be legal. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> okay so i guess let's start with that so mr. sanchez one clarification. >> what i said earlier the 10 year period for the other 8 that are already in prop x it is only

dealing what you see before you doesn't allow you to use the exemption but for every 10 years. >> so mr. sanchez what does anybody know of the history was it governmental like 1970 what was it. >> i don't have a definite answer prop m or m two. >> it was converted from manufacturing. >> but nothing was manufactured they're all armories; right? >> as far as i know. >> it was pubically owned by converted. >> so i'm looking it from the land zone 0 not an assembly line or a scar repair shop a shell of

a building most of them are on the national register so in the n u n what can they do above 50 thousand square feet. >> there are retails that are allowed. >> anything prohibited in the m u m. >> anything off the top of my head i think because it is a landmark they're actually no limitation on the amount of office under normal - normally

m u m just to be clear you'll have to will have to have the prop m allocation. >> mr. sanchez we've heard from the community that is a pdr was done there i walked through the building yesterday and there - i went downstairs a tavern basement storages was that considered pdr how did he know what pdr basement was talking about getting rid of things. >> i was fortunate to look at the armory years ago and i understand definitely seems is to be an area where there's manufacturing sets and other props for the use of upstairs and storage. >> right.

>> again, i want them to clarify. >> i want to understand project sponsor maybe you can show us you have a map or anything what - because we talk about the i hear something and commissioner koppel will hear something i want to have something to look at. >> okay. >> can you hand it over. >> i have floor plans. >> you want me to come around there. >> the secretary will take. >> maybe walk you through it on the overhead. >> i'll take commissioner president fong copy. >> if you show us the 2000 square feet we can get an idea what we're talking about. >> you can bend the mike.

>> pull will mike over jonas oh. >> jonas will help you. >> right. >> here's the whole building. >> okay. >> the basement is some 65 thousand square feet the biggest continuous space the drill court is right adjacent to it is the ground floor adjacent to the drill court and then the tower portion which exists only on this side here floors 2, 3, 4 and this is the mezzanine floor by floor the basement is the space the cavern space been used for film production in the past was part of a training facility

you have a shooting range here i discovered no longer legal to shoot guns (laughter) and over here you have a swimming pool and over here a jim and that was a training facility where the arm or an actual graduate trained people one an ammunition room i don't believe they made anything. >> this was noourmd pdr. >> i was told that was pdr thank you. >> but now currently i read in the chronicle a couple of days ago everybody is leaving. >> primarily financially partly incompatible with a all place for the court so the

building niece to be regranted. >> you were going to have someone come in and saw a painting and freaked out they asked for their money back. >> corporate event we lost a variety of business on account of the other uses. >> the basement do we need to clarify. >> it is related to your question you opted out your business occupies the entire business; correct? >> yes. >> not other uses. >> no there is an area of about not more than 12 hundred square feet rented to a company on the ground floor and their pdr use they're responsible for helping to do the event. >> i believe the way our

permitting process workers by establishing the film approximate you established the pdr in the believed you're allowed to have that as accessory space. >> got it. >> this entire building should be considered pdr. >> it was up until the converted that local. >> let's take that out of mix. >> so i walked around the offices how - how - you have 4 floors ever offices shall i continue. >> the ground floor. >> talk into the mike. >> this the entertainment space. >> okay. >> and adjacent is essentially primarily accessory to entertainment but pdr like uses

like i said if people handling food - building the sets and the deck for the event so that's the ground floor there yeah. okay. >> great. >> this is the second floor and so it is only consists of this area here because this is the mezzanine so the floors are 15 thousand our pitch to you will be the office studios to any operation should it stay in the building what was my business. >> floor 2 is arts. >> we'll leave the small rooms their originally residential their 40 offices so it will be small offices and we'll rent them as studios. >> this is our accessory

office we're using it about 7 thousand square feet and quite space occupying the rest of it here so we consider this to be our accessory office floor. >> how many square feet. >> i mean professionally - >> what is the population of workers i walked around and saw people on computer. >> it is tech workers primarily here it is the remains of what was the production the entertainment and finance and i. >> and how many people are employed on that floor. >> potentially 60 or 70 people on that floor. >> can you keep going up. >> on the top floor was i mean this is the roof of the building that is again about 22 thousand square feet was basically a set one big set

we call the upper floor but, yeah it is now in need of a use. >> and the next floor. >> that's it as that's it. >> in a rehabilitation overall plan we will be building a basement to revolver elevator so 65 thousand square feet downstairs; right? >> on the court drill court in an accessory 25 thousand. >> yeah. >> then you have 38 thousand i'm sorry 22 thousand on the next two floors. >> first, the mezzanine on the second floor that's 15 thousand primarily artist studios and the standup two floors ultimate we'll come back to you and pitch a small office entitlement.

>> okay. so what is the staff when you figure one working per how many square feet in an office. >> in the past has been roughly i think 22 to reduction in years to something below 200. >> coming from tech more like one hundred. >> i don't think that is that low yeah. a maybe like one 80. >> so if you're looking for roughly 46 thousand square feet of office. >> depending on what the actual square footage on this floor and professionally measured i can give you an ideal scenario on the second floor i can rent the top two floors i want to point out briefly we

have to go through the of certificate of appropriateness. >> your total count. >> is about 80. >> so looking at any math going from 80 employees and then 46 thousand square feet of just office at one hundred and 75 square feet per person one and 62 that's additional 80 employees with the gentrification of office. >> those are rough numbers. >> okay. so those offices upstairs have literally offices i mean - >> they were administrative code they were classrooms. >> you're not constructing new offices your. >> we're hoping to knock down a few walls that's it.

>> and how many employees do you have in the basement doing pdr type of stuff when internal revenue down there - >> very few. >> if you're converting the 65 thousand feet in the basement of pdr how many pdr makers or spaces will that be what you envision that. >> you know what we've worked with sfmade that did an analyze it is 4 hundred and something that is a lot i don't have that number. >> 4 hundred and something pdr people. >> that pitch will be segmented into the 4 thousand square feet and how many artists. >> roughly. >> does - second floor have -

about 20 to 25 studios i'll say. >> can the artists double up. >> yes. >> i'm going to put 50 we have an existing condition of 80 employees in the building they do basically pdr stuff you want to take it to roughly 270 doing office stuff 50 artists and pdr stuff. >> now that i think about the 4 hundred sounds like a lot - 65 thousand square feet that is thirty units yeah, it is not 4 hundred i don't know what the number it it went through a eir traffic study for something close to what i proposed. >> if i look at maybe i'll ask peter to come up i get the

concern around the office thank you very much that was helpful and the gentrification and ask the gentleman what the employees make. >> probably something higher than the average the computer screeners make 60 to maybe a record if employees make between 60 and one hundred no makers on site you might five-hundred for storage it will allow 50 artists that we need space important and the additional office workers so if you look at this and 200 thousand square feet you need to mix the uses you have to have something else and the office unfortunately bans the funding portion of the stuff that needs to do what what did you say to a

building with a mix. >> on the first level we talked with the mayors folks talking about building pdr that's an independently extensive and this will be usually for artists and make that profit for the first floor. >> we talked a long time about 100 percent affordable but other than eminent domain how could we get that done. >> i think for one thing not passing this lvenths that is step one you don't have to pass this legislation just to be clear this only applies to 3 projects in the entire 70 projects in the mission right now. >> no, no the actual prop x i

know is the sausage factory it applies to assess that agreed to that amount of space and armory those are the only projects out of 70 if he can get the sheets to it maybe there's one adam we missed because a they have an environmental impact but a lot of reasons they were in play and exempted in some way their principally they started to shift you were saying hey pdr retention is important at the they've tried to use other buildings and converting pdr by the time prop x went through we've been choosing one out of 3. >> work with me here and you can refute this is a corner space as article landmark an the

national register it and work before the gentleman bought it and i was worried about. >> we absolutely think there was issues, however, he knew when at the bought it for one anything thing and made an convalescent profit and wants to say to the city help me maximize profit we helped him convert the space as a cheaper costs have dozens and dozens of artists displaced right now that could quickly and easily more often and pay a reasonable rent we find that a middle ground. >> he can keep it the way it is or go the way you want you say you're in the middle you'll get 2 hundred maker jobs and 50

artists that are not there now we have a net floors of real pdr space. >> first of all, we have contenders about makers what kinds of makers we'll be likely our middle ground is paying a lot of money to have expensive journal and arts like the makers of the streets there are three hundred hand bags this is what we consider middle ground and part of 151 square feet per worker. >> this is the national standard according to the industry to which we cancer consider to be smaller and more influenced it is reasonable to say one 40 we do our math on we think that is lower we think

there are more workers coming in there. >> i'll let some other commissioner. >> thank you weigh if. >> director rahaim. >> a couple of points of clarification for the record it is important to note you're not reviewing the armory your viewing a piece of legislation that effects properties the armory about come back if we have a prop m request you'll still have to see the conversions at some point in the future the second thing 3 projects from the pipeline prop x applied to future project; right? any conversion of future conversions of pdr prop x requires the conversion just to be clear the 3 but the future projects will be subject to prop m and the replacement of pdr i wanted to put that forward.

>> it is important as peter said and i disagree with him when they bought the building this building has always been a difficult one to use and reuse the zoning was much more likeli we're now saying that is pretty spearhead case kind of we've limited it is narrowly focused to the armory 50 thousand square feet in the armory in a building that we've seen have problems with much more liberal zoning district commissioner koppel. >> yeah. it is almost as if the

word pdr is at some point historic pdr is going away as preferred usage for some of the older warehouse buildings and they're going to in general be older buildings that will needed physical help i want so address the building safety and use the buildings as an example when you put - usual roof is leaking you need a new roof now if you don't have heating you'll have people plugging into space heaters and whatnot your heating system in san francisco in general a cooler city and fir rated egress you're going to need that you can't put stuff like that off the safety of people in the

building the potential safety of people had will be working in the building is in jeopardy i'm not comfortable telling the owners you can't do this we'll not going to enable you to make your building safer. >> thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> anyone else commissioner johnson. >> i don't want to hog the mike. >> thank you. >> yes. >> i guess maybe i want to ask staff to refresh my congested memory because i seem to recall that when we last spoke about this project the idea was that the next time it will come back

we'll be seeing a project as well as trailing legislation and i was reading this protective and thinking to myself well, how do we know if we want to if we're okay at limiting requirement if we don't have a project despite the wording of this legislation that really was going to apply primarily to the armory right now and projects in the future so with that did i miss - remember that or change. >> i may have missed that as you recall it was asking for the hpc to comment and have inference from sfmade we went to hpc and sfmade is going to give a letter i don't know if - >> the reason i think that is important because as we sue with

the dialogue with commissioner vice president richards just now there was quite a bit of discussion about the actual layout of the building and the last conversation of the armory a number of things like an old creek with structural issues with the building and it was important to look at what is the layout of the office and whatnot maintained to get xhovrn comfortable with the legislation to ease the ability to rehabilitate this property we'll see a sketchable project i guess i maybe liv let me turn to supervisor kim's office are you all comfortable with the sort of philosophy behind in project without the actual plans. >> i think that we - you know again only 3 article 10 in the building that would be affected

by this trailing legislation but before day is no we're to the confront with any particular project but wanted to make sure the prop x legislation that was intended to preserve pdr spaces in eastern neighborhoods areas and nicole for the armory i mean it is a u m u which director rahaim just said is very, very flexible and open and for historic buildings there is an not a limit on office conversions but we wanted to keep with our goal of prop x to preserve some level of pdr space but recognizing this is a historic building that needs some additional support to maintain the historic nature in addition to our desire to

preserve pdr space in that believe and in that neighborhood so the legislation is really broader than the project and the project certainly has to go into the process with that commission around an office conversion he know there is discussion last time about so what i had discussed last time in terms of the prop x legislation there is two component of that one a conditional use requirement the other a respect requirement and based on what we know of the planning department data on the armory curbing u m u and a environmental review on record this is the decision as a relates to the discussion of armory the legislation as written says that the replacement space needs to be new so it doesn't take into

consideration this case of what happens to a building where they are reusing their existing space thousand dollars that's true how we got this this legislation, of course, a project that is impact by it more, more that the policy discussions about the intersection of the historic buildings and the desire to preserve some part of that as pdr spaces. >> thank you quick question when we do prop m small or large office cap looking at director rahaim can you give us an indication i think i know can you give you your opinion how u how that decision will be different than one under the office of a cu that is different but still have to see that as a prop m allocation how are those decisions different

realistically. >> there is a different requirement prop m has a set of curriculum for allocating office space the conditional use has its own set did criteria and the cu it is a conversion of pdr says that a requirement under prop x that was part of ballot measure this will exempt it from that. >> i understand that's my understanding especially that is a small cap. >> well, if - yeah, you allocate the office space when it comes to you; right? out of small cap if they then substantially choose to add to the 46 and build 50 that will come up u come out of a large cap.

>> my question we've done a few of them and the decision making is you're looking at can we review you know what the requirements are you think it might be great to hear them again. >> i don't have them in front of me it is similar criteria. >> the 10 are similar between the two entitlements the office and the cu. >> anyone know exactly what it is i'm blinking. >> i'm trying to look it up. >> just we've taken up projects in u m u that asks for office conversion and limit the floors to pdr we undertaken. >> like a similar process what i'm getting at a similar real world diverse between a cu the

tenure of the conversation particularly that's what we'll be focusing on; right? for this project a cu will open up to other items i feel like we'll be - >> yeah. >> the other difference the appeal the conditional use goes the board of supervisors and - >> however, approving the office allocation didn't require judgment based on something necessary and desirable so i think the bar as far as the commissions own voting is concerned is higher than a cu than a prop m office allocation office allocation, huh? >> i understand what you're saying but i think i disagree in the sense when i think about the conversations about prop m allocations actual buildings we had to do that the tenure of the conversation is the same as if

their necessary and desirable we are talking about replacement officer the use that will be there i'm better late than never the projects on third street and a couple of other ones. >> we have and they've overturned our decision. >> i understand commissioner vice president richards. >> commissioner johnson are you done. >> i'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve the modification and second. >> commissioners if i may on our motions are you accepting staffs recommendation i want to clarify our recommendations diego sanchez they differ and the main difference there is two clerical clasps the historic preservation commission agreed to one we will limit the conversion to the less of 49

square feet and of the building that are dedicated as of july 1st, 2016, the universe of the buildings that could avail themselves of this exemption. >> beyond - yeah. i accept that as part of the my motion and the reason i'm okay the 49, 999 keeping in mind that the projects the sponsor has in mind with 46 something thousand square feet and in terms of limiting the building the building has 3 already; right? >> it is for the way the legislation is drafted future buildings that are dedicated designated in the future. >> your motion includes the staff recommendation. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> okay. so mr. sanchez

before you sit down under commissioner johnson motion the artists 15 thousand square feet of artist space is that - can we do that is that they're taking pdr space and given to artists is that allowed under this - if we limit to 46 thoughtless square feet. >> i think considered pdr because the stipulations about the subsequent use in prop x. >> okay. >> so i don't know. i see where folks are coming from. >> you know i look at the mr. larkin for the family housing and see a different city and this area has been more engaging and appealing since his company moved in in a democratic society i'm not city not society so i go

we're actually, i think in essence voting where a mixed use project is necessary and desirable that's really we come back from prop m we're opening up the gates to allowing a mixed use project by giving him a right to come back i get the chicken and egg thing we need a project we don't have a project i can't get financing i'm opening up the donor and saying okay bring us something we can see and approve. >> the good thing the hook into the armory the allocation and i think we tend to look at this as all-or-nothing 50 thousand or nothing i want to hear a project we offered such we give the gentleman a certain

amount of square feet and give a pdr with not a flood of office workers that get a balance in the building it is necessary and desirable that building needs to survive and be successful we can talk about people that wanted to change their property but we don't look at their no objection returns and say - what will we get back. >> so we'll be getting something back so. >> with the fees. >> not a free ride. >> there are impact fees. >> okay. so i guess i'm coming up with maybe a different

way we have a motion on the floor given more than the office put in a restaurant fine but may be given as much as we want and say you know we're done half of the building needs to be pdr that's not the 5 thousand square feet blues we call it a day don't come back in 10 years you're good i'll rather be more liberal and do something beneficial or beneficial for the university and all the new artists and makers rather than constrict and have them come back in 10 years and take another bite of an this needs to be substantial the net of what we produce is much better than what we have now i'm open to

giving him more but curtailing in the end i don't know if the other commissioners feel like that. >> commissioner moore. >> an interesting considerations you're raising commissioner vice president richards i think given the large impact the change happening without levels if in particular neighborhood i find the departments more caution modifications appropriate for this particular time. and again that in and of itself is for all the changes the same people have brought in front of us i am slowing starting to accept the age with the configuration of this building requires a leap of faith on our end to support in particular legislation together with a modification of the department asking you to do two days ago i read about a similar project in

new york city as park armory which is a project perhaps historically accountant different a precious building where the burden of converting this building as a historic building into something that can run by his it's historic nature be preserved but code compliant and the by itself is sounds like it is not doable for those reasons given the size and age and condition of it we don't have any other choice but to be creative in the interpretation of what is in front of us the legislation is carefully enough formulated and modified with what the department is putting in addition that i can only at many moment support that as the department is bringing it forward with the support from

the supervisor kim >> just a couple of clarifying questions. >> the 10 year the notion they can come back in 10 years will remain in the legislation. >> that's correct. >> and i think i'm in agreement with commissioner vice president richards we should recommend to the remove that but i think perhaps in trade offs and the gentleman was fine with 50 thousand square feet of office that seemed to work two floors so perhaps up to half for other uses he talked about retail from ground floor uses that may not be pdr could be good in that this it is a fairly dead space bunker like in its design i don't know if if will

be acceptable to eliminate that and come back in 10 years to get an additional 50 percent and perhaps limit to 50 thousand square feet stays with the office but up to half the square footage of other uses other non-pdr uses that is allowed. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. i think i can jump in there is a misunderstanding of the 10 year limit my understanding the i can't do was to the 10 year limitation means they can come in once every 10 years and you don't want someone to apply one year to remove 50 percent of pdr and come back 10 years later to remove another 50 percent and so on i'm not sure this is how. >> that's our understand we

don't want them to come back and eliminate 50 percent now and another 10 years eliminate 50 percentage. >> so one time for this property to never be able to convert. >> currently we're giving them an exemption. >> so (multiple voices). >> mr. sanchez this is entertainment it is big kind of hardwood floor this area over here where the gentleman said people will be doing the design and the food preparation does that pdr activity. >> yeah. my understanding that is accessory to the - space to

prepare for the weather food service. >> he will be - that's not allowed or it is allowed. >> our tech activities is food service. >> and the accessory to the entertainment. >> all this square footage is good okay i'm open to upping it from 50 thousand square feet maybe not 90 or 95 square footage maybe something in the middle give them 60 thousand or 75 square feet and not come back i think we want to preserve pdr peter said that right this will be over the course of several decades. >> decades yeah. >> i like what commissioner president hillis had to say as

well. >> this will not be for office. >> we don't have a project in front of you but i want to meter that. >> commissioner melgar. >> i had a question for the city attorney how the exemption you understand it to work that means they can come back in 10 years but we'll be reviewing that; right? not an automatic. >> the way the legislation is currently drafted this exemption which is included on the last few pages of your packet is an exemption from the section as a whole like all of the other exemptions currently included ♪ proposition once a project is exempt they don't trigger the replacement requirement the way that is crafted it is

crafted to allow for the 50 percent reduction in the onsite pdr fee requirement without trig the cu requirement or the other requirement you'll not see them as long as they're under the threshold >> just to be clear you'll see the office for allocation but not other uses necessarily if it is converted from pdr to office space. >> just to be clear the amendments to the motions or your thoughts what you guys are trying to do instead of that write will have a cap on the other uses beyond office now and then they'll not come back ever again. >> the cap is 25 - we have a cap of 50 powers that is 75 thousand can convert only 50 thousand can convert to office they can come in and request

other rate are non-pdr uses i suggest those subject to a - they may not be subject to the office obviously they're not i recommend they be subject to a cu that they require - again those are recommendations we are making a it is legal to require a cu that is principally permitted is that what you're getting at. >> they'll allow up to 50 percent of the spates pdr space to be converted to office and allow some additional amount of pdr space to be converted to some other use from the use is principally permitting the u m u i want to ask the city attorney to impose a cu. >> i'm sorry your proposal is - can you clarify. >> currently the way the legislation is written 50 percent of the space can be

converted to offices. >> can be converted away from the pdr use. >> correct. >> the fee is trirthd no matter as long as our converting. >> the staff has recommended that is limited to 50 thousand square feet so an anticipation that 50 thousand square feet will be office kind of the top two floors i suggest that we maintain that 50 percent conversion but only 50 thousand is eligible to convert to office and the other 50 percent to non-pdr and office uses but requires whatever authorization by this commission a cu if need be. >> if that's the correct. >> yeah. i think you can limit and amend that the exemption

applies adding other requirements to the exemption i understand what you're saying one the size conversion no more than x amount or 50 thousand requirement and the other requirement up that amount only x square footage or percent to the office space the rest is other use. >> 50 percent we'll eliminate that 10 year second bite of the apple those are being promoted commissioner johnson has a motion that's been seconded all commissioner moore. >> i didn't see commission is trespassed in that direction i'll not support 24 thousand square feet over retail is very rae large it is this appropriate for this size almost like a shopping center and i believe

that the work that the department has done we can send our questions back to the department and ask them to comment on that but i feel uncomfortable trying to second-guess the legislation as it is i believe that is thorough and making the modifications and don't want to kind of create others interpretations of what is in front of me that's the collaborative of those who make legislation and ask us for sufficient time to explain and perfect. >> just to be clear this allows 75 percent or 50 percent to be converted for office it is staff that recommendations the limits. >> the use and specifying this is 25 percent could not be office but something else that didn't hold for any because of the size including the market

ability and the appropriateness of the space 25 percent other than office there's a whole other set of rules coming into play we're not quick to make that kind of determination. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i look at the map from the presentation the 65 thousand square feet and 45 thousand and the accessory to the drill court 25 thousand that's pdr and an 8 thousand square feet commissary aon the ground floor but here in 53 thousand artists on the 1 thousand square feet i want to take our word at that i don't know how you can use 91 thousand square feet to 50 percent bans what we've talked about so i'm backing away from the 50 percent

i think maybe in the middle between 50 thousand a hard number around 70 thousand and call it a day. >> commissioner johnson. >> i'm getting uncomfortable being random part of this legislation is an attempt to allow the owner the property to do whatever he need needs to do to keep up the property and random how many square feet can we do how much retail is too big we're into the territory we would need people to go back and do more analysis on what will work we're present with legislation is that it i think so philosophically make sense we can work on the details and leaves the commission with

discretion i stick to my guns when we do prop m office allocation a large cap conversation we often have similar discussions about our questions on the project i'll add if we do anything ppo push the cap the project will have bigger issues large cap office space is in limited supply we will have many xhfgdz above and beyond the design i honestly think that you know the legislation presented here is a good view of the project as it currently exists a culmination of people looking at what it takes to maintain the property and to have the policy behind the landmark building pdr space, the mission neighborhood and i really don't think i think we're into gray territory back and

forth over numbers we don't have the analysis to support that. >> director rahaim. >> i currently us to keep is simple there is a lot of question about how the 25 can be converted one users at 25 and one hundred users and 25 hundred if you allow that you'll see 5 hundred square feet it didn't make sense for you not to have a cu of 25 thousand square feet on mission street i'll encourage you to keep is simple and stick with our recommendation in this case. >> commissioner vice president richards i do not want to belabor this they can contact every 10 years and do a 4 thousand restaurant in the hall

4 thousand square feet to play with in 10 years that is onerous i think i want to get this moving on along but, sir any comments on more square footage but no ability to convert anything else you have to take 10 years. >> that's the consent first of all, i was lucky enough to get it 2000 that means the 10 years i can't change any portions felt remainder to anything else so one takes this formulation i think put in a restaurant you can't do it we'll have to come back to get a super majority of supervisors that's what is challenging. >> you say this is not your if you don't get to choose

preferably to keep this armory going will you prefer a larger amount of square footage or smaller to convert in 10 years. >> sorry i'm sure i exactly understand. >> more than 50 thousand square feet that's the absolute number if you have 50 and come back in 10 years or we give 70 thousand you can contact what makes sense from a flexible point of view. >> it is difficult to know to predict what city we'll live in but i mean. >> sorry to interrupt i think there is a clarification we have a different understanding of 10 years. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. the 10 year limitation is only as to the exemption within less than 10 years they're welcome to

come back and apply for the conservation they will have to get a cu and provide replacement space the respect space space can be offsite. >> it is currently possible or in the future. >> there is no current limits to the offsite. >> you're saying you want to say -

>> commissioners on item 16 the transportation to demand management those are amendments to the planning commission

standards. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon commissioner president hillis and commissioner vice president richards i'll wade a senior planner with the planning department i'll introduce i don't i don't chair tang from supervisor peskin office before giving a short presentation. >> congratulations commissioner president hillis and legislative aide to supervisor cowen she's excited about the third component of the superintendant program as you may know significantly moves our transportation system they shapt the sustainability fee and

serving as a sponsor the tdm ordinance this item came before you in august 2016 since then the board of supervisors land use committee this is a harder the tdm ordinance at two meeting and made changes to the grandfathering reporting and the tdm at preoperative meeting the part time to the tdm standards are the result of an extensive and collaborative outreach process by the planning department and as sfmta it is a of with the public and other stakeholders the supervisor believes this accurately addresses the concerns since you heard those and urge to to doubt those and more importantly we want to acknowledge the great work of planning department staff and the sfmta specifically

those wade and victor that spent a lot of time to make that tdm a reality and workplace i'll bring up - >> good afternoon again wade with the planning department staff if he can go to the monitored i'm here to talk about my favorite topic transportation and specifically the transportation sustainability program as mentioned this is an interagency collaborative effort for a number of years and just a reminder we had several hearings on this so quickly the third piece of the program the first was the sustainability fee is a

impact fee that employs to the residential development and updated the fee and the second consultant was about aligning the environmental review with adopted transportation policy and more specifically that was about removing a level of automobile to a more meaningful metric the vehicle miles travel that cars any create as well as the distance theirs or here's the third component the planning commission initiated in component back in april and then adapted it anonymously in august before that was sent to the board of supervisors this consultant is about shift people from volunteering to sustainable mead's modes of transportation

and reducing this through onsite amenity and programs as mentioned there have been a couple of board of supervisors hearings and then there's a another hearing at the land use committee on monday regarding this program. >> and the program as a reminder two basic components there is two basic structures of this program as the first is the ordinance that's what is before the land use committee on monday not before you today and that is the ordinance that is the sets the policy and articulates the framework for how the program will work and how it references the tdm program standards which are before you today. >> the tdm program standards are were adopted by the planning

commission in august and what's before you are substantive amendments to those standards based on the outreach over the last few months the tdm program standards owl how updates should occur and within that that owls substantive amendments and non-substantive the substantive requires the planning commission approval under our jurisdiction not require the board of supervisors approval and think non-substantive engagements amendments can be made administratively by staff the the staff report we have outlined more informational by the way, the substantive are here for your consideration. >> and the reason that is program standard can be updated over time is because we want to be responsive and up to date to the transportation field that's

what the amendments are doing they're responding to outreach that we have done over the last few months and i'm going to walk you through some the comments w0e67 received with from stakeholders some the significant comments and maximums we plan on making generally they fall four themes people are receiver to the program in support of it and that the program works for the vast majority of projects and the amendments before you are reilly dealing with project on the margin small things and the large end of things as well as particular amendment to the individual measures in the memo of items so with that, i'm sorry to just do a quick summary as presented

in the staff report on packages it through 5 the first is the project on the small end of things we've heard significant comments that small projects were not getting credt for redug the parking. >> so the fix we are proposing amending the the fact of the matter for smaller types of projects as well although it doesn't directly address the comment we've created a number of tdm plans working with projects smaller size as well as memoranda and large size and provided them with example in outreach we've done and plan on posting those online. >> the second that was on the small end of things the second small amendment on the opposite

end of the spectrum large projects we previously anticipated there will be projects with so much parking they'll exhaust all the memo items and that therefore they'll have to do two more things the first one is reduce they're parking to the neighborhood rate and the second thing choose every item in the memo well working with various stakeholders we heard this was bumper to bumper and may toy the hands of decision makers we're proposing two for those rare circumstances rare looking at the the two hearings it out of one hundred and 6 projects that fall into this scenario the first amendment will remove