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 the

amendment they're forced to reduce they're parking that allows others to weigh in on the appointment amount of parking onsite without tying their hands and the second amendment razors those choose the vast majority in the memo but a robust flexibility in the plan. >> lastly there were a number of measures i'll quickly go through those were items 4 through 7 in the staff report and a supplemental memo that was passed out have copies to me left car share for projects to have their own car share program

above and beyond required by code the second amendment would clarify the density in the space for onsite amenity that address particular challenges that family space traveling without a personal vehicle something you all talked about and heard about earlier today next would allow for an option inform department of the emergency management onsite childcare unit in addition to the already existing option in the memo of having an onsite childcare facility and related the next amendment will enable a path program if their ever is one to fulfill the requirements of this measure. >> and then lastly which is identified in that supplemental memo we would easement the onsite affordable housing to

recollect newer research about vehicle miles travel and the level of onsite go availability appropriated this slide is a quick summary of previous amendments of ordinance that were made at the board of supervisors and some potential future amendments i'm not going to go over those they're in the staff report i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> but not on the slide or in the staff report is something we discussed many months ago potentially there might be discussions around health and human services and the nonprofit and their applicability in the programs in terms of next steps if you adopt those amendments today, we will post new tdm standards online and we have recently thanks to the great work of mike and others and the

department posted a web-based tool that is interactive the public decision makers and be developers can use it and figure out how the podium works for their individuals projects that i will note that tool didn't reflect all the amendments before you today but will. >> then in terms of legislative next steps i've mentioned the ordinance is before the land use and transportation committee monday and hopefully, the full board soon thereafter and then once the ordinance is adopted the fun begins we will hover some staff this is staff approved in previous prior years budgets for this program we will potentially have an evaluation report to the

commission after one year or 18 months and then we will evaluate and refine the standards we'll evaluate and see what works and make sure the document is living it is breathing, and that that works so therefore we ask you to approve these amendments so we can hopefully begin that important work thank you. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you we'll open up for public comment i have speaker cards i'll call names you can line up in my ordany order (calling namefeel free to roof line up on is screen side of room. >> i'm kathy and the proposal

and program director for walk sf supportive of the tdm ordinance i'm here before you there is some part of standards that we would like to see strengthened to really make that ordinance of tool that encourages walking in the city and it's current form the tdm under value the amenities that encourage walking this is one that has pedestrian amenity in the option one item is worth one point we feel like this dysfunctionally under values the elephant to get people to walk and this we want to have people use the option of not driving he know the most substantial way is walking and the component of our transit trip since they start with a walk and i understand with a walk we want to see more

value an pedestrian amenity so one way to do this right now the way active one is written item a developers goat one point if they do 10 pedestrian amenity we think this can be divided into two separate items 5 amenities one point and another 5 other pointed we're afraid that one additional amenities is not - it is not strong enough another way the pedestrian amenity and another item to be added to the memo focuses on the research that shows that walkability features like connected activity and place making features encourages the walking another feature can add that i'm here to ask you to amend the standards

to assign more value not the majority of memo we are excited about the transit and walking but one point for walking really didn't get our city to be encouraging walking and making walking safer to thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. give this we're an electric shared service so cars we allow people to two leg trips through the city we've been around 4 years and seen how this is transformative 18 thousand people use our service and deny 2 million miles within the sftravel we want to see more encouragement of that option for

the tdm program adding more points in buildings are willing to but in the infrastructure where a service like ours and light electrical vehicles take up smaller spaces than cars as great alternatives to cars and great alternatives for families where dropping off any child i can go from public transit to my job faster a great program not a lot of opportunity to work with the planning department or the tdm program we look forward to move forward we think that the tdm program should do to encourage more one of the biggest barriers getting into a new building is that we're not getting much support from the planning department in that regard and also it is a cost barrier to put in electricity

after the fact if we assign more points to light electrical vehicles anything smaller than a car it will give people opportunity to our only electrical vehicle. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi other people john winston on the pedestrian safety advisory committee i get to this room the second tuesday of each month i represent the children and we're committed should be committed pedestrians their dependent on their parents to get them to school i'd like to first of all, thank you for this for this measure whatever we

call that so it implored we're in favor of it but want to echo the walk sf we want to strengthen the pedestrian walkability of this resolution i'm also on that bottle reservoir cca and we're now seeing buildings of housing and more density out in the western part of town i think that is good thing and taken the pressure in the last tell me how the mission is stressed out beyond it's possibilities and so i as the western neighborhoods are used to have more debt should be less density for cars my opinion strengthen the pedestrian elements of this thing so as we make this transition we want to allow the people that

drive to be able to drive so the new people can't bring in their cars and make a foundation in my opinion to make things better for pedestrians thanks. >> thank you mr. dulavich. >> good afternoon, commissioners tom executive director of livable city a few comments is on one of the slides about the tps this bugs me one check marks next to a line they're not check the box they're done in reality we begun to do everything on this list those are all works in progress we fossil fuel funded the transportations we'll have not done that we did a fee that covers a portion of the new projects but neither close and same thing is the environmental

review we believe that the los shift was big i was talking about earlier in public comment we're in deep need of fixing things we like you to think of those things as living but not on - i don't think we can take credit in my of the areas let me speak to some of the amendment that are proposed today here you know they talked about stakeholders they reached out to about those amendments we were not one of them i'm wondering who those are you speculate but looking at this i feel those amendments you know substantive amendments no problem with the non- substantive ones they're mentioned as meant to wraelg the effectiveness of tdm ordinance

and a little bit about what tdm is how is works we have tdm in this city it is mostly in the form of requirements you're required to have transportation in new building and car share spaces and bike parking in new parking the biggest tool in the toolbox is parking it is 23rd of the city we ask you to do contemporary to the goals of tdm anti tdm and the way you can get around require something we don't want and get exceptions through the ordinance from the requirements that shouldn't exist in the first place with a - lowering the parking and creating a maximum target all wraelg the effectiveness they are chipping away and a at the

most effective tool in the toolbox and getting a number of points the walk sf helps you can create additional points in areas that are effective until projects are over the line but lowering the bar is not what we need to do congestion and especially big projects to reduce the tdm should be making the biggest contribution thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> pardon me good afternoon my name is a matt with tdm partners and we're in the process of having a family-friendly to be defined a family-friendly project and while we support the goals the tdm podium we did have concerns and somewhere along the lines commissioner president hillis we think for parents may be one of the great tdm is

carpooling but they involve cars we met with staff i really want to commend the responsiveness and in considering the comments of the concerns and not all of them were taken but the thoughtfulness and responsiveness to be commended in this process we are supportive of resulting plan and just really want to underscore the appreciation of what took place thank you. >> good afternoon again corey smith on behalf of the bicycle coalition. >> those are the best ways for people to get around and members have a margin for parking for the units that are desirable for

everybody kind of an odd conflicting thing we talked about this quite a bit i also want to reiterate the point that kathy made about walk sf we do consistently see across the board for this the moment flexibility as many ways they can moot the requirement they appreciate so many options as can be provided as humanly possible is appreciated thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is a debbie with the san francisco human services network we're an association of about 80 city funded health and human nonprofit a hero to talk about the city social agencies are given an exemption from the tdm requirements who've within

raising this point for about a year and happy it is sounds like some support at the board of supervisors for some kickoff an exemption or a requirement we hope that commission will be 0 supportive of this and have the staff work with nonprofits to first have a permanent exemption certainly a fee exemption or perhaps at least some kind of case by case explanation that looks at the other kinds of development that subject to requirement some of the things we've raised before staff said those causes are rare if that's the case that would not be a big deal if their exempted not harm the goals of mitigation but we hope to see more development as the mayor has just invested about $6 million in into look at

long term solutions for a horrible nonprofit displacement we don't want to see that keep in mind we're a community-based nonprofit our clients not thriving to receive our services they are walking and taking the bus those facilities that have parking spaces for the most part they're there they are using vehicles that are used for services they are working with seniors and people with disabilities and providing transit services or doing meal delivery to people that are sick or who can't get around on their own and didn't make sense to expose fees that will increase the cost of services to have those book to the funding department and ask for more money that's the reason the board of supervisors almost

unanimously exempted nonprofit human services organizations from tdif and tsif requirement we ask our support and hope you'll make that. >> thank you. next speaker. mr. cohen. >> someone is pen it has a serious show you mark on it. >> good afternoon, commissioners peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. i'll start by saying we fully enforce what you heard from deb with the human services we work closely and we everything the logic we want to see those very specific types humanvices supports treated differently and grad to see a pathway for that and hope you'll enforce it so it

is clear to the board and with the walk sf a no-brainer and have a meager point value which seem good whatever you can do there i'll spend the majority of my time speaking about a proposal how onsite affordable housing is evaluated the point system and what they rented is a really good improvement from the way it was before i have a suggestion that comes across for - i wanted to suggest two things one is onsite affordable

housing has a very significant brt literature is starting to show vehicle miles traveled and car overflow room dramatically declined with households income and make sense to all of us the let you is showing you the value from a point stand point will seemed to be greater than 1, 2, 3 i guarantee you under the proposal by staff no project about get 4 points all that does is ignore the backside commissioner vice president richards that's a chu chu agenda that is now made public (laughter). >> there's the recycling increasing the point value to the overall scheme i'm sure it allows up to 5 points as opposed to to three or four and this is wade and i talked about that

maybe some scientific logic for not doing that it didn't have a drama of a reduction the middle-income hours is a good thing from the policy and if less point value i ask you include that chu chu advocating for points from middle-income housing those are our suggestions thanks. >> are there any other speakers on item 15? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much thank you to the staff for working hard this has viewed and you guys did a fantastic job i want to touch on the points more affordable housing left i'll stick now to some of the other items

the first one is totally ago with the comment from livable city and walk sf on doing more to enhance the value of options that included - increased walkability including the design like the correct activity of site and landscaping i have a question was the suggestion from walk sf i'm not sure if she's still here - >> maybe i'll well, i of the wondering if walk sf there you are come on up. >> was a suggestion thdoubled the value of every single item you have 10 items with 5 points.

>> that's a suggestion i will leave it to staff to determine what makes sense in terms of the actual items i gave some ideas but one easy solution will be to do that with the current item flip it into two that's double the points. >> i don't want to brainstorm that but overall. >> thanks so much. >> overall i think this is going to be a work in process this is something there is so many details and configurations of how projects get choices that that be project by project and seeing how it goes and what changes we need to make to the program so that's one commitment in support of items that create more walkability and connectivity it is important we

see if you projects recently we've spent a lot of time talking about how did pedestrians getting across the site or the project and so i'd like to - that's one the second one on car share so we've gone back and forth there was one line of argument that car share residential building is not just amenity for the residents it is a community benefit it is a network like a network of something for the community and utilizing those residential buildings as space for this visa street parking and other accessory parking for car share i think that over time we've gone back and forth and shifted stereos car share and spots in residential buildings being for those residents of those

buildings and by providing you know car share specifically for those residents you are dollars their desire to own a car within that project or potential use other vehicles it is not clear to me where we landed as a department i think that is important because if you got developers spacing let's say a project with a certain size it makes sense to have a program maybe something about pop up this is a gate of argument about it creating a let's see a city car share one company having vehicles spread across properties and partial spots creating a network for the

neighborhood i'll ask wade or hillary can you opine where are with we on that philosophy of car share. >> that's a great question wade with staff we discussed this as a team i want to make sure you're clear on the amendments the current car share parking requirement in the planning code are not changing so those requirements require that we are pubically available and mr. teague can weigh in this he wants to add we discussed given the overall focus to reduce the vehicle miles traveled from the development we thought that was appropriate and okay. if those that concludes my remarks parking spaces above and beyond what the code requires are restricted to the tenants of that building.

>> so we believe that the existing code requirements should be pubically available but if they want to go bayview we're okay with that. >> in reality you won't have that let's see the building is required to have two spaces and above and beyond two more spaces for points tdm. >> they're not going to have two spots i'm pick on car city car share and two spots that are some other their own vehicles or something. >> there's actually a number of buildings that are doing internal car share on their own. >> they'll not mix and match. >> they actually are doing that the ones we are requiring but on their own providing

internal car share for your resident and in conversations with zip consider i believe they were tubbing how in other cities like vancouver and british columbia developers are realizing that i forgot the exact ratio i provide car share on site and provided x less vehicular parking spaces that's the concept behind the program. >> that makes sense we on the same page about providing car share okay. that make sense and then another question i'm a correct a maximum the truth of the matter the fact of the matter and the requirement 80 percent of a project. >> no only for projects that have so much parking no more points available once you hit

that trigger it would be 80 percent of total points available for this project the vast majority of projects will not encounter that if you have to 20 parking spaces they're not 80 percent of 13. >> i get it thank you that's helpful. >> any other commissioners and commissioner vice president richards. >> yes. sir, can you under suggestion or meantime number 2 can you walk me through - i i get it on the low end the app ability to those 3 projects one and 6 but on the highway end walk you through number 2 maybe a real life example what it looks like and why the skewed.

>> it is generally around 40 points or so you could have a situation you're providing 5 hundred parking spaces abused maybe you're a one unit building 5 hundred parking spaces is more than 40 points it would be i don't know 60 or 70 points i don't know under the current standard if you're parked over the neighborhood rate the neighborhood rate is less than .5 spaces per unit which that example 5 hundred parking spaces we require that project it reduce they're parking. >> so the track rates an car

ownership. >> what the pashgs supply in the neighborhood so we've done the building research and estimated the number of that concludes my remarks throughout the city if you're above that we're forcing through the current standard we'll require you to reduce your parking. >> in the 5 hundred example only 4 hundred spaces available whatever you counted one hundred. >> okay. >> so that could be you know informing the hand you all can make that project reduce the project without woeg in for other reasons that's the right amount of parking. >> we saw with the one oak project will we have any consideration between as of right and like a cu i want 5

hundred but allow 250 that's what i worried. >> the amendment madam chair clear the decision about how much parking onsite is really a separate policy decision so if there's a cu for a project they still need to meet all the criteria and you need to weigh in this that's the right amount of parking this amendment is not being made it not force not force a reduction in parking. >> ♪ example they come from the cu for the 200 and 50 spaces that's what they're asking for their subject to a different set of rolls leased we see the maefltd to make better decisions >> through the tdm program you

know they'll have to meet whatever their to death and have a robust tdm plan. >> sure. >> and separately under the cu we weigh in are they meeting the criteria within the cu to approve it. >> i like the walk sf folks maybe give weight to the walking amenity that's a good suggestion obviously mr. dulavich we're beating the same drum around parking i look forward to work with the new president of the commission to figure out the parking on any list to advocate and move forward with and i think that's all i have to say this is good. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. yeah, so this is a great one last comment and hopefully, we'll be close to approve i think mr. cohen said points

for inclusionary housing is grow it is to reduce the millions traveled and connect the cots to the conversation an family-friendly housing and note that we probably find some of the same benefits decreasing some of the changes that make project more family-friendly will reduce the vehicle miles traveling families are not moving out of city they're staying in san francisco so just want to connect the dots and hopefully have something to look at in the future i believe that exposure has a comment but i move to approve and ask the staff to look at more items. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to restate the

pedestrian amenity i like to remind you if we have age acknowledgement of the electrical square footers the gentleman made a good argument and no one picked up on a restatement of the exemptions for the san francisco human services depending on the nonprofit and increasing the point value for onsite available which knott's berry farm also mentions at least 4 points i think tying back to the family-friendly neighborhood is overarching theme as we move forward we understand that better and continue to refine and make this a go flexible living documented with a living procedure. >> director rahaim did you have comments. >> i want to comment on a couple of your comments exposure

first in regards to the electrical scooters if you go above and beyond we are allowing for 15 percent of the car share spaces to be electrical scooters are some other type of space we're allowing for that in the memo it is buried in a footnote and then. >> can i ask a question. >> how many scooters do you assign for a car share i think 5. >> that's how we came up with 15 percent 6 spaces i think that's how we came up with that. >> with the point value it is not a one by one. >> and the second comment you talk about the health and human nonprofit service that will be made at the board of supervisors this is not part of tdm standard

so that's really not really under you can discuss it but not part of action before you today. >> thank you. >> commissioners i want to add a reminder those are standards our acting on there your control only the memo you can change as we learn about the program you can change that on a fairly regular basis as we learn about the effectiveness of the standards standards and one of the goals to rely on standards that have data to back up my only caution i don't think we want to get into a situation air arre aarp temporary - there's been a

lot of reach particularly it didn't reduce traffic some of these not to which but to make sure we employ standards that reduce driving. >> exposure. >> family explanation - the push back lies in the comments so we're basically reaffirming a tightening of the double standards and increase on the point values if possible on those items that were stated before that's where we're coming from today. >> jonas can you call very good adopting the amendments as well as directing

the staff for standards for walkability. >> commissioner melgar commissioner moore you said only stand for walkability four other points. >> the adopting the amendments proposed by staff as well as directing staff to standards for walk ability. >> that's the motion. >> i. >> commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 16 howard street a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners rich the item before you this the conditional use authorization for the proposed project on howard street requires a conditional use authorization to allow office space workplace a historic

building pursuant to the planning code section the proposed project is a change in use of 11 thousand plus square feet from pdr to office to a second floor resulting in a total of 14 thousand plus square feet of office use if addition has with a rooftop stair and implements a historic building maintenance plan to assure the program for rehabilitation to date the department has no letters in support of opposition office space is not permitted unless within a qualified historic building this limits the office space but not permitting office use on a empowering with the provisions of this office use will be allowed within the historic building yesterday an

january 18th the hpc reviewed the portfolio and found it obtain to be comparable with the secretary of interior standard and enhance this historic property the hpc requests one condition of the approval on the interior of the facade facing howard street they ask the facade be restored to match the original architectural drawing they want to add this to those the conditional use authorization after analyzing all aspects of the project the department staff represents with conditions the project complies with the planning code and with the objectives and policies of the general plan and promote the historic resource and encouraged by the area plan and the historic preservation commission and zoning administrator have's determined the office use will enhance the feasibility of the the subject property the project will pie the appropriate invokes

and considered necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood just to note the project is exempt from prop x since the square footage of the building is less than 15 thousand square feet that's one the requirement in the prop x legislation the project sponsor is present and prepared a short presentation that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you project sponsor 5 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners and commissioner president hillis i think that has a nice ring but today, we'll do that. >> as rick said that was conducted in 19267 and for the earth on the rest of the building that was - 11 thousand plus square feet with a spanish style and eligible for the

register and the historic research survey adopted by the historic preservation commission in 2011 the building is located in the m u zoning district neither is a pdr district or requires retention of pdr used the building is surrounded by residential not commercial properties as rick said the the subject of the planning code which allows office use in historic building we propose to restore the building with the standards of the secretary of interior standard the project would increase the size of the building to 14 thousand plus square feet the resulting office project will be suited 0 house a tech startup or similar generating use the zoning administrator determined that the feasibility of preserving

this for all the reasons this building the project qualifies for approval under the building code at. >> yes. historic preservation commission they unanimously recommended the approval with a condition of the howard facade be restored we've agreed to this and will modify that change i'll introduce my colleague in turnball to go over the restoration plan thanks. >> thank you, steve good afternoon commissioners members this building was owned by the manufacturing company that ordinary illinois and was described fab indications corp. tubbing by george kaelthd and designer of such buildings of

the shell building that is now the asian art museum character defining feature one story massing and tile roof two existing classic arcs that society with the windows and wood claiming a glazed wood door the east side of the facade. >> on this side there is a exposed ceded wall and some scholl features in restoring the facade we'll install the windows on the first floor level where the original would do did not survive we're repair window and replace a steel windows along

natoma street. >> yesterday the historic preservation commission as richard has said made request we restore the howard street facade opening now present will install without permit at sometime probably in the latter half of the 20th century and therefore the final appearance will say similar to the 1923 rendering when it was designed as part of seismic stabilization the engineer has discovered unstable sand and there will be a new structure slab in stable listing the soil and foundation this is a rare activity for a building this small

and in addition will be strengthened and diagrams the project involves the expansion of the mezzanine and a rooftop stair and a plan has been prepared and approved by the historic preservation commission we thank you. >> so that concludes great. >> so we'll open up for public comment any public comment on howard i have no speaker cards. >> jonas one there not sure if if it is on this item no public comment public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore i'm delighted to see this we have a lengthy discussion about the arsenaly this uses modest square

footage i'm 2k4r89d been restoration of the building and campaigned the gentleman for his description to the historic preservation commission deliberations i'm delighted in the applicant as agreed to install the third door without this building wouldn't be quiet and i as nice i move to approve. >> jonas there is a motion that has been seconded. >> very good, commissioners. on it to approve with conditions. >> commissioner johnson. >> excuse me - commissioner koppel commissioner melgar exposure commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> commissioners that places us on item 17. >> with jonas we'll take minute break. >> san francisco planning

commission this is the regular meeting for thursday, january 19, 2017, commissioners, we left off under our your regular calendar for item 17. >> on third street this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner president hillis and fellow commissioners jeff department staff the item before you requires a conditional use authorization for the proposed project on third street the project propose to demolition a third and to conduct a 40 foot tall seven hundred and 60 square feet of spaces - and class 1 bike parking spaces. >> class 2 bike parking spaces since the publication of staff report staff has not alleged public comment it is well-served by transit and provided dwelling

units and net gavin newsom 5 dwelling units with a commercial says that the department is code compliant and with the scale the neighborhood represents the commission to approve that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> great, thank you project sponsor you have 10 minutes. >> good evening commissioner president hillis and fellow commissioners my name is jeremy of the shaw aektsz architect this consists of two parts one demolition for the fire that happened a i and you'll be reviewing the new building so this this site rather is existing commercial building built in 1927 with a accessary dwelling above that was normally

used by the storage proprietary over many years a mortuary and a storefront church up until a fire in 2011 the building has been vacant since then can i have the overhead? i'll show you the photos this is the view of the apartment again the second level from the rear this is the inside of the units can you zoom in here maybe not. >> so as you can see the rooftop is completely gone and the interior is gutted this is the commercial space on the interior a 2 story spice with the mezzanine ringing the

outside mreerment that the existing building is built 85 percent of the depth of the lot if so code compliant for the rear yard height and scent and all that here's the proposed rendering of the building a 6 unit building with a ground floor retail use and each of the 6 units have 3 bedrooms we're talking about family-sized dwelling units earlier today each of them are three bedrooms and one to the ground floor it is a 4 bedroom to bring up another item no parking there are 8 bicycle parking spaces directly across the street from the t line you'll see that that the surrounding

walkable neighborhood just a rendering from the odds taken from the station. >> this is the ground floor there's a seven hundred and plus square feet new retail use and the lower dwelling mentioned other building function. >> i'll skip to the third street plan there was three bedroom units on the front and three bedrooms on the rear each of the units are just shy of 12 hundred square feet definitely good for families - due to staff comment and feedback from the neighbors we removed did stair penthouse from the program

so this is the facade we have in front of you now mostly rain screen panel this is something we were inspired by the library and this is a nice pattern of red panel this is what we're poepg on the upper floors the ground floor will be mostly stucco with aluminum storefront again, you can have windows mimic what is in the neighborhood i think i'll skip to the end and saying this is the demolition authorization for for that years ago we believe this new building that provide a low more benefits to the neighborhood a net gain of 18 bedrooms living spaces low increase by over 6 thousand square feet in the neighborhood

provide a nice new bright spot. >> thank you, mr. shaw opening up for public comment i have one speaker card terry. >> hi there my name is terry i'm own 27 latonya a property it is adjacent to the proposed development and so we kind of the back corner of my property butts you want against the property in discussion today. you mention i guess overall i feel very positively about this development and agree that will add a lot to the neighborhood you know i'm tremendously supportive of adding qualify transit assessable and family-friendly rental units and

thrilled about the decisions as you might imagine i can see from any windows it is light dangerous, yeah, it is just terrible i can't believe it is allowed to exist as lesson has it has my upstairs neighbor was not able to be here today we've talked about that and attended the public session that the architect had and really appreciate the removal of i can't remember what is it called- the stair penthouse we do continue to have some concerns about the height i understand that it is consistent with what is allowable not neighborhood as you can see from the streetscape it is 2 stories turn around anything else within 3 blocks on any side of it

and so it is you know like i'll be relieved existed if it was one story shorter two stories make a difference when you're talking about the difference between one and 4 and two stories that is different than you're talking about the differences between 10 and 12 stories that will be turn around anything in the neighborhood i'm a transit user i believe in that i'm concerned not going to be parking i think that even the president or chair of this commission talked about in the school he attend there is two parents that don't have cars i think we find that families tend to want to have a car especially in the bayview we don't have all the family-friendly amenity like walking and transit assessable things so one of my thoughts is that

perhaps you can see the facade extend over the height of this roof line line i i don't know if so a way to make that look better by lower the facade so, yes generally i'm supportive i guess want to see this consistent with the neighborhood >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment item 17. >> hello good evening my name is a rich i am in a practicing nurse we have a specialist i have a lot of friends and families that live in the neighborhood and i would love to see something fresh and brand new in the neighborhood up listed instead of no bars in

front of the windows things change in the city i feel this is a positive change and i think there are meeting that. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is although, i own the property a couple of blocks on 1946 i looked at what we not to do that and completely support what we want to do. >> thank you. >> great. thank you very much. >> any is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> sorry okay commissioner moore. >> i'm in support particularly of the discussion about family-friendly housing this well sized three and four bedroom units is not a nested bedrooms i think i have to say that i think when we talk about family live ability and this is

a family-friendly apartment building that is code compliant by height i believe that the earthal cometion it is thoughtful role scales it down to the extent it looks compatible with what is adjoining it i did not believe we have to have a health environment when we are talking about the gentrification of the city when you look at down the street a taller building than the front rendering i'm in full support and want to say the package is thoughtfully put together and answers all the questions that be sometimes not well explained this one is move to approve. >> second. >> thanks commissioner johnson. >> a quick question because especially because no park parking in this project what's

the process for a loading zone third street is two one of the traffic lanes is the t line. >> they they have to consultant with the department they likely will not quality they have proximity basically, their prohibited beacon hill within a distance from one of the transit stops from the loading zone because that the two narrow that's my understanding. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> completely support this. >> obviously it is an opportunity city citing to add for housing not displacing no one not door-to-door can't think a better place for this i i get it the height and hang will happen a positive change and no

parking has a positive effect on the t line in full support. >> commissioner moore. >> depending on the type of square feet this will be a loading white zone for food related small cars running things i don't see a a major increment for this to succeed. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded knott's berry farm compose commissioner moore commissioner hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places us under our discretionary review calendar for item 18 irving street a

discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners chris department staff you have before you a request are for a discretionary review of a building permit to raise the 2 and a half story building on irving street two twnlt this project proposes to have a horizontal addition and vertical addition ground floor 8 hundred plus square feet looking at the front of building a two bedroom totally 8 hundred plus occupies the rear mezzanine a total of 8 hundred plus will occupy the three and four floors and 21

hundred will occupy the third and fourth and fist floors the project includes of bike that concludes my remarks and the existing below grade will be replaced with one thousand plus of storage place and the curve cut will be removed to allow for the increased stereotyping parking that will be 40 feet in height the planning commission previously considered a site on december if the commission moefld of moved to continue this to allow the project sponsor to modify the project so involve of alteration to the existing building it proposes the horizontal and vertical positions that will not be tantamount described in the planning code commissioners since the publication of the

staff report planning department staff has received 2 of letters of support and 3 letters in opposition to the proposal that is right here. >> yeah. >> the department recommends that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve that that the project represents the appropriate underutilized site with the retail use in an established neighborhood commercial corridor. >> the eliminations the curve cut reduces the pedestrian vehicular conflicts and allows for increased a off-street parking in general compliance with the applicable requirement and proposed the conformity with the controls of the inner sunset that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thank you.

>> thank you so we'll open up the pr requester has 5 minutes. >> is the dr requester? you minutes, sir. >> good evening, commissioners this previous project elbow went through a dr review before our commission. >> may want to flip that image. >> one more time. >> one more push it up. >> okay. thank you. >> approximately story level we went through this last year

the neighborhood along 12 avenue up and down the street many who came in front of you to present and met with the project owner we gathered more than one hundred letters against the project liaison 12 avenue concerns of the massing of the building during the commission commissioner moore enthused the keystone lots like this to be more considerate to neighbors due to they are greater impact now a new one that is higher than the one that was presented last year the tall itself building after saint also known as with a deck it's there. >> at that height southern facing keystone will right hand an unreasonable impact on light

and privacy for those on the block the building will be unprecedented in our building no building that has decks that high are faced so close to their neighbors on a keystone lot the proposed project will create an exceptional decrease in properties next to it and surrounding homes the zoning administrator should have asked the project sponsor in the last filing to reduce the impact on privacy impacting their neighbors we request that the board approve the project with conditions us neighbors would like more limits on the privacy we'll be subjected to the impacts on light and the impacts

on space down our street if i could i'd like to submit a couple of things during the last project we submitted things that the dbi asked for on the original project have been added back in. >> previous project the department has asked them to scale back the building that faces our homes that is added back in this is a diagram of the current a faces down 12 avenue.

>> this is an approximate view of the building the impact on light and this is the impact on privacy the subject property that had been replaced by a building not approximately 40 feet in height but well over 40 feet we're adding another 14 feet as you may know we don't get much sunshine in the winter this is our sunshine down 12 avenue in say is allowed to be built at this height approximately - the impact on privacy, open views and light. >> more than a dozen homes and apartments and private homes in the neighborhood ♪ back area from the keystone lot

>> thank you opening it up for public comment folks in support of dr and in opposition to the project now two speaker cards allen and patrick morris. >> okay. >> hello commissioners my name is allen i live on 12 avenue at the other end of the block i wanted to mention that the posting in front of the house is not truthful it says you plan 35 foot height for the building not right 3 floors along irving street

no demolition residences the existing structure and response to the neighbors and community nothing about the deck on top of this building that looks into the bedrooms on the other side of the house not a great idea that's all i have to say. >> we'll hear from the project sponsor team you'll team will have 5 minutes. >> these are copies for the commission. >> so commissioners good evening my name is craig with my family and wife and daughter we have resided in 1126 irving since we purchased in 2002 and

working on the remold and you met me 6 months ago when i met but when the project is complete we'll move into the same two unit we currently live in nothing exceptional or extraordinary that warrant us 16 months ago we brenda a larger version to the demolition for 16 months we worked to incorporate the feedback from the neighbors on the mass and height the project has gone through major revisions that respond to the neighborhoods concerns and finally we presented with a thorough 13 page response to the dr the actions to minimize the impacts to the neighbors the only thing i'm going to turn it over to joining you heard mr. morris didn't acknowledge any of the changes of that changes to

the project on his behave including reducing 50 percent of height of the building to 35 feet and specifically for his own interests so i'll let joining explain and that's on the handout you received. >> good evening commissioner nice to see you you again can i have the overhead? new look at the two images on the front of the package the one on the left was proposed 16 months ago we heard from the commission at the time specifically commissioner vice president richards who basically said if you can save the existing house i can support this project and commissioner moore who talked about the architectural design doesn't fit in we've redesigned the building as director gee e craig said 50

messenger of the revolver we as you can see barely see the fifth floor on this because of the shape of the roof the aged shape of the roof so basically seeing a building that is much lower than before. >> this is the view from the other direction again, it is stepped down in coping with the scale of the street and raised the height of the commercial space so inactivated a temple foot ceiling a 10 foot that aligns with the space next to that the dr requester i think it is interesting that he says we'll be the biggest building in the area but the building at 12 avenue is turn around what we are poepg and the building on the corner anothers 1100 irving street those building next to

the home in the first and second picture the building on the corner is a 40 feet high building a mass of 45 percent of the lot and then continued and covers the lot with the additional one and a half story building in terms of the mass and size we are consistent with what immediately adjacent to us to in terms of the height we are consistent with the neighborhood. >> in terms of the light i'll quickly get through that the building at the 11 hundred right next to us one and a half stories this face south if you look at the diagram there is a lot of light that is completely unaffected by this project and mr. moore's talked about that back part he thought we put book

it is exactly as before it is pushed 12 feet further away from his building the western sun will come down this. >> in terms of privacy we have eliminates to windows that were on the property line and windows that are set between 4 and 12 feet from the property line a number are translucent glass we have made a better condition the privacy we hope you'll endorse this. >> we'll take public comment testimony in support of public comment i have one speaker card ronald. >> we have people timing wise

seeing no testimony dr requester a two minute rebuttal. >> there was a lot focus on the rear of the building but i'd like to know what is the height of the building. >> turn that again. >> can anyone explain the height those ones next are 40 feet tall but what's the tall itself 45 feet, 46 feet. >> sir address the commission. >> it averages 45 feet not true the plans it is 45 feet none can answer that direct question we're talking about the tall it building in the neighborhood they'll add this will looks great in the front

that is inaccurate that is the same anchorage not veraging not t >> thank you it meets the code as the code is written and covers a portion of the top floor you know there's sunlights of 12 feet in the front and 24 in the back that fifth floor is a small portion of entire roof i think this project is a successful project in terms of sporting the community in terms of the design it is consistent it is architecture fits in with the 20th century of the

neighborhood and respond to concerns of light and air of privacy and i think this project will be a very respect project i'm urging you oh, on top of that we have one hundred and 25 letters of support including enormous support from the surrounding building another 11 hundred along irving and all support this project and waiting for it to happen i'm urging you to not take dr. >> opening to commissioner comments. >> kwhoer. >> i recall the challenges with the design the first floor i personally feel that essentially ever question i believe has been thoughtfully responded to and i think the

building does what we will expect to do it was a respect neighbor and compliments the existing setting i don't have any concerns about intrusion of neighborhood privacy that costs a lot the deputy the adjoining backyard the loot early distance this is a modest roof deck is not of concern i'm very much in support and appreciate the additional time the architect and the applicant have given to do this right i'm fully in support. >> second. >> that's a motion not to take dr. >> knott's berry farm nope. >> commissioner vice president richards this is one of the i went.

>> i agree with skwhoerz comments the design is better than before i'm happy to see something and i approve it. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to a motion there is a motion that has been seconded not take dr on that motion commissioner johnson compose commissioner moore confirmation and commissioner hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. >> and places us under our final item 19 webster street also a

discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioners i'm david lindsey department staff the item before you is accident alteration of a two-story single-family on webster street includes a two-story vertical addition and 3 story horizontal additions the project also property facade changes to the east bay stare facades with the addition of a two-story bay window the new fourth story is setback 4 feet under the flat line and 5 from the east and 10 from the main west building wall a second floor balcony proposed with the stairs leading to the restricted the the subject property is at the of webster and it is a small

corner lot measuring 8 feet deep the zoning is a rh2 and that is the north side 20 feet wall and dissects this webster street slopes up bush to pine street this portion the western edition east of the fillmore commercial corridor chishgsz by 3, 4, 5 and misrepresent family residential buildings they consist of three bedrooms on the east side off sets the east side of the the subject property a four story residential up hill across the street and downhill to the south and 3 story residential building immediately to the rear of the the subject property building the dr requester is jason lung

that the president of the 1837 plus homeowners association that is the four story 3 unit residential building uphill north across wilmot street the dr requester concerns are as follows: the project will negatively impact the light north of beaumont street and that the building will negatively effect the privacy for the adjacent building with those on bush street the residential design team reviewed it a recommended the size and placement of windows on wilmot street that faces the dr requester building to be reduced the project sponsor substantially revised the windows and the department

concluded that the project is revised consistent with the residential design team giles and didn't create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances specifically the rdt found do dr requesters concerns regarding the loss of light and privacy are not exceptional or extraordinary and provides a buffer between the the subject property and the dr requesters property further the projects north elevation is articulated with the beaumont setback more than 2 and a half feet the stall are partially observing secured to mitigate the privacy concerns in summary the department recommended that the commission not take dr and approve the project as revised.

>> thank you mr. winslow the dr requester 5 minutes. >> mr. lindsey - any public comment in support of dr requesters seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes. >> sorry. >> hello thanks for hearing us this evening i'm patrick i'm the project sponsor my wife in the back row we have two daughters 5 and 21/2-year-old we love this neighborhood we've lived in that for 5 and a half years and we're trying to build a home that our commanding and potential more expanding family can live in for years duo to come and love to get the project moving i'll let

our tech take over. >> i'm the earth helping pat and hitting his wife this is as single-family home our goal to create a somewhat leaguer might havely sized single-family dwelling if fits in the massing through a renovation with a horizontal and vertical a new terrace at the rear the surrounding properties you want the screen up. >> jonas can if you can put the screen up. >> slide 3. >> great. >> yeah. so the surrounding neighborhood is a mix of varied mass building three and four story building the dr requester across the alley is somewhat large 4 story building and we think that the size of proposal

is modest in scale compared to that and bridges the gap in mass and scale to the fairly last year victorian single-family structures that abut us as david mentioned we have a separation of 20 feet of the alley between the two property lines our building currently is 6 needed e feet a total of over 22 and a half feet i don't think that light and air is spec really an issue a view that the multi story building enjoys over the the subject property i think that is part of the issue here. >> we did make a lot of changes in response to concerns by the dr requester and david ran through the window changes and things like that we in working with the staff

before the dr request we proposed a leaguer form initial and david suggested we bring it down and setback the top story to better bridge the massing between a larger building and the equally sized smaller buildings to the south i think that's all unless you have any questions. >> great, thank you opening up for public comment anybody in from the public that wishes to comment seeing none, jonas do we need to take rebuttal. >> you have an additional two minutes. >> we'll close that portion of the hearing and open up to commissioners comments. >> mr. sutro i have a question could you speak to the size of

the existing building and describe to the commission the proposed building. >> yes. in terms of square footage the existing residence is one thousand plus square feet in gross and the proposed is 3 thousand seven hundred 50 in goose so the garage the proposed is 3 thousand 50. >> the dimensions as well or is this a square footage question. >> primarily a square footage question. >> yes. we have in an rh2 and as you may know we have a mandated of looking at densification of the city so this commission has to kind of balboa the mandate for families sized housing we spent a lot of time today and what does rh2

require us to do i need to say for starters this is an appropriate sized building and in its context and well-designed building and i'm in storage support but don't want to fail to raise the question we as a commission have all the time i need to go through the motion with each other not the motion but the discussion of rh1 and rh2 and largely the building to the extent of 19 hundred plus to a living space of 34 hundred this is. a two children family already i like to hear what other commissioners have to say in principle this is a well-designed highly appropriate house for an extended family but

wait for other decisions. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> after overseeing exhausting hearings on getting additional families into the decide that is a question staff should raise when they have those come before them bring it up our goal to achieve gentrification it is a beautiful building i love it. >> david lindsey and his team asked hey, did you think of putting another project to bring it up and we answered well, we looked at that and hard we don't want a door in the alley and david said enough you've done our part it is interesting to

see the actual mechanisms in the code that promote is tangiblely. >> i agree a well-designed building and appropriate for the site like angle small so not building a massive home but accommodates our family that works you're hearing a decision perhaps set better and clearer policies on the rh2 we'll require two units or require two unit but until that is in place our project is great i'm supportive of it i think that work on this site. >> yeah. sorry real quick i actually think i love the design and actually like this building a lot but unfortunately, i feel

like we maximize the density whatever we have the opportunity and the discussion we have to how it gets into the code not someone nodding to file a dr we have a good consistency i think this is a great project and i'm not going to support it i think we do need to be sort of strong on moment missing the density. >> combhoer. >> you like to have to take it in we don't have a standard law but an steering wheel important part by a big lot the densification in rh2 is reader and 20 plus minimum lots what

he's doing on an significantly smaller lot in the densification of family-friendly i'm a stickler when we responsibly need to dense if i we have in this case we'll make that difficult to achieve a quality unit so i'm actually prepared to not take dr and to approve as it is rice already that's a motion. >> second. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to not take dr and approve combhoshgs no. >> compose commissioner johnson votes against general public

comment there are no speaker cards. >> any general public comment. >> seeing none, the commission meeting is . >> it seems like everyone in san francisco is talking about housing san francisco housing prizes are among the highest it tops anyone million dollars and rent rise unfortunately, this is not the first time housing has been in the news thought california the cost of a home

has made headline the medium prices for a house in the the $207,000 in california it is more than twice that amount and the laura u bay area is higher it's more than doubled the states so while more than half of the americans can afford the medium fewer in california and quarter in the bayer and now fewer than a 6th of san franciscans can afford it so why it housing in san francisco so go cheven condition tharz the obviously a high demand to live here the city is known for cultural diversities that attacks new residents and the credible opportunity our city diverse and will daytime committee grows jobs as a result

we estimate the number of jobs is at ann an all-time 0 hive of 6 hundred thousand in the 80 the population was 6 hundred and 75 thousand now, it's grown steadily and quickly the recent estimate is 8 hundred and 40 thousand the highest in the city's history and it's not only san francisco it is greek the bay area has $2 million for residents and jobs then in the 80 and the growth is expected to continue by the year 20403.9 million people unfortunately, our housing supply does not keep up with the demand i might not realize the majority of construction is housing that's been suspended for years due to the 2008 recession while

population is increasing the housing is only increasing that i 9 percent if we don't pursues housing the cost of housing about only increase how do we plan the regional allocation identifies the total number of housing unit by affordable level to support the new residents san francisco incorporates it into the housing elements that guides the housing policies the arena data places it in the investment plans for the growth throughout san francisco those plans developed by years of community planning laid the ground work for the construction so the city he e sets the goals in broad terms the private sectors builds market rate housing and non-built affordability housing that

majority of housing in san francisco as well as throughout the country market rate houses built by private developers within guidelines of the city some below market rate you howls paid pie public and private dollars and prized to be variable to certain population housing is considered affordable if it costs less than 1/3rd the medium income for a 2 percent householder is $70,000 this householder will have to pay no more than $7,150 to be affordable san francisco has see long applied federal, state and local money often built and nonprofit tint for individual families the news cities in california what the inclusive program requires that 10 or

ottawa more units to certain blow income levels or contribute to the fund that supports the blow market rate unit almost 25 thousand have been supported by city funds and more than 6 nous thousand of the unit were built between 2000 and 2012 what you can't afford a million will home you're not alone in response san francisco mayor ed lee has set a goal of creating thirty thousand now e-mails homes by the year 2020 most will be in outreach of the san franciscan with federal and state funds drying up the san francisco ethics commission is, taking an iv i of actually roll is providing housing across all levels we're working diligently for everyone to live

here and mr. chair protect the housing semiand strengthen goals against evictions we're commented for housing needs for all san franciscans to learn more visit highway >> alright, good morning, everyone, welcome to our plans and programs meeting of the san francisco tran por transportation thortd, today is tuesday january 17, 2017. our clerk is steve stamos and today we are joined by two new commissioners, commissioner jeff sheehy and [inaudible]

safai, with that, mr. clerk, let's call the ro*l. >> iem tem 1, roll call, commissioner breed, absent, commissioner farrell, absent, commissioner safai, present, commissioner sheehy. er >> prenlt. sheehy, present. >> commissioner tang? >> present. >> we have a quorum. er >> thank you, item 2, please. er >> item 2, citizens advisory committee report, this is an information item. >> alright. thank you, we have chris [inaudible], our cac chair here. >> good morning, commissioners, welcome, new commissioners, good to see new faces and current faces, good to see you all, we only had one item that's on your agenda this morning, item number 4, the allocation of 653 thousand in prop k funds to bart for balboa park station. very minor in a lot of ways but we had some concerns over the et thet ix of the glass head house in comparison to the

brutality earn design that is at glen park and balboa park station. i spoke with the architect and he said that the designs were to honor and complement the existing designs so the glass head house was mostly the issue, so the glass versus [inaudible] was something that people on the cac had issues with. regarding cost increases, we wondered why the engineering estimates were as low as they were in comparison the the ultimate contractor bids, increase ins the scope and change order with also of concern so, nr the end, we wondered whether it was the bid environment or staff engineers and contractors not scoping a project budget or a combination of all of these things. this item passed 2347 favor, one abstention and three members not present. >> great, thank you so much. with we get to that item, i'm go to literally play around

with chairs here, one second. thank you. so, when we get to the staff presentation, i'm going ask them to address the concerns you raised, thank you, so are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item 2 then? seeing none, public comment is closed and item 3. >> item 3, approve the minutes of the december 6, 2016 meeting, this is an action item. >> alright, can we get a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> alright, thank you, and we'll do that without objection then. sorry, do we have to go to public comment, yes, item 3, public comment, minutes, seeing none, public comment is closed and we had a motion and we'll do that without objection. >> roll call. >> we're a mess here, sorry, so item 3, let's rescind that and let's do roll call vote. er >> item 3, commissioner fa tsai. >> yes. >> safai, aye, commissioner sheehy ?frjts aye. er >> commissioner tang? >> aye. >> the minutes are approved.

>> alright, thank you t minutes are adopted, i'm supposed to be the veteran here but i'm messing up, item 4? >> recommend allocation of 653 thousand 101 in prop k funds with conditions to the bay area rapid strans sit district for if ball bow ka park station eastside connection, additional scope project subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule, this is an action item. er >> i'm mike pick flooder, we have one request as you know this morning, bart is requesting prop k funds to exercise a contract option which is not relate today the base projts but -- and expand the scope of its existing project, the balboa park station eastside connections project and that is kurntsly under construction. so, the base project will create better connections between muni and bart station by constructing a new accessible muni platform and walkway and head house that would connect to the bart station.

we have an illustration of the base project here, so the transportation authority has allocated 2.2 in prop k and 1.9 in program transportation funds to the project since 2010. the work that bart is requesting funds for today would improve the appearance and comfort of the station by refitting glass window ins the clear storey, as you can see illustrated, where there's currently deteriorating opaque panel, this will increase natural light nr the station as the original design intended. the additional scope will also construct a new ceiling and light ining the concourse of the station. this work package was a contract option in the contract to do the base project and was authorized by the bart board subject to finding availability, so now prop k is able to leverage other sources including measure r-r bond funds that were passed by the voters in november and some state funds to get it done and the entire project will be open

for use by june, 2018. and with that, i can take any questions. >> great, can you -- would you miepd addressing some of the comments that chair wad ling addressed through the cac and cost increases or at least i guess the bidding, he had a question around that too. >> we were hoping bart staff would be here but i don't see any at the moment, one thing i will say is the request under consideration today is a contract option that is separate from any of the costs involve ined the base contract itself. i think what we've referred to in the scope in terms of the cost of the overall project was the last time that the transportation authority saw a request related to this eastside project, so it was less well developed at that point, you know, i can't get into details about every single element of the cost but i know

that the budget was less well developed at that point and as you've seen with other construction contracts around the city, this is a very competitive time to be building anything here and if [inaudible] would like to add anything to that. >> good morning, commissioners, welcome, i'm anna law ford, director for policy and programming with the transportation authority, apologies on behalf of bart staff, they are stuck in a bart delay, but [laughter] so i'll pinch hit for the -- this was also brought up at the citizens advisory committee meeting, the original contract was put out to bid over a year and a half ago and may have been longer before because the project is well under construction and this is a contract option that was originally bid on when the contract was originally let or issued if you will. we did follow up with bart staff about the reason for the overall project cost increase a portion of it is due to this additional scope, a portion was

due to the bid environment at the time of the contract being out on the street. it is typical of what we have been hearing from some of the sfmta projects on the transit projects, sometimes there is a single bidder for several contracts so we're left to negotiate with a single bidder or reject a bid and take a risk that you're going out to a more favorable bid environment. i don't know for sure if -- the number of bidders on the original scope of work, we can find that out if the commission is interested in that, and then so there were -- so, there's the additional scope, there was the contracting environment and then there's corresponding contingency amounts and projts management costs that go up when scope increases as well, so naoez are the corresponding costs that go along with the scope increase. >> okay. great. and then in terms of -- i can't recall, did you have an issue,

mr. wad ling, about design as well. i'm not sure if bart can address the design. >> this was also brought up at the citizens advisory committee meeting and bart staff replied that there had been many, many discussions about the design at the time that the head house was being designed and one of the -- including with the architect that was involved with the new features so there was the sentiment that the station needed a front door, if you will, some kind of an access and entry point, there was also the sentiment of wanting to stay away from the concrete that existed now, so not setting up more concrete, to put up light and glass and recognizing that it was a contrast but that that was where it ended up with the then bart director and with the conversations that took place at the time. >> okay. alright. well, thank you for your

presentation and answering those questions, colleagues, do you have any questions or comments on this item? no? mr. safai ?frjts yes, i think this is an important step in helping to really open up and redesign a poorly designed station that gets a tremendous amount of use, particularly from people that are pedestrian nas are trying to connect to the other side, i commend you and this is a great project for our part of town, thank you. >> alright, okay, great, so with that, then let's open up item 4 to public comment. >> as i mentioned, chris wad ling, cac chair, i spoke with the architect who helped design the head house, i wanted to enter into the record what he communicated to me. he was basing his designs off of one of the brutality architectures by the name of

james sterling, sterling design, crystalline glass forms with rough concrete, it was from their varied works, because his environments were overcast, he designed more glass forms into his architecture, similar to bart's beginnings and the main reason is function, the groan house is compatible with many overcast days of marine environment, roof format is the existing v over the station, it and its glass walls differ from concrete and are a complement to the heavy forums, the head house incrude thing v that looked like too much v, they considered the passions of the original design architect who was earnest born and he was more into a medievalist type churches, he *f you figured he would introduce [inaudible] those were his design comments

and as commissioner safai mentioned, the community agreed those were well worth it. >> any of the members of the public who wishes to comment on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. i do agree that i think probably almost any change under the current conditions will look way better so, with that said, then can we get a motion to approve item 4. >> so moved. >> okay, and we will do that, same house, same call without objection. alder, item 5? >> item 5, introduction of new items. >> great, so i'm guessing that ta staff have already briefed the new commissioners on new items, i don't think we'll have any today. we'll go to public comment on item 5. okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. and now item 6. >> item 6, general public comment. >> yes, good morning, andrew here, the haubl u [inaudible] of human heart leads to the

recovery of holy heart and [inaudible] with good conscious for once knowing the capabilities of uses and pathways, one [inaudible] well-beings for the [inaudible] people, helping hands for people in the days of difficulties, the pitching of true principles for their full awakening and turn the dangers to back to forever security are known as [inaudible] for the holy way, such relief acts of mission [inaudible] also promote the free spirit of public nature for the person, [inaudible] one will make use of restfulness, good nutrition, meditation for the nourishment of one's spiritual soul for a healthy life, the internal and external works of holy way and holy virtue will ensure of completely [inaudible] of once holy objective of advancement,

with that, the recreation of personal, family and social relationships will come to an absolute [inaudible] of ultimate virtue, of loyalty, of parental love, of dignity, of maou manatee, of justice, of proper manners, of wisdom, of trust, such 9 vir chugs of a beautiful person shall be actualized of holiness, amen, thank you. >> any other members of the public wish to comment? is there someone else? no? okay, seining none, then the -- >> before you close public comment, i want to recognize todd morgan is here pr the bart financial management staff and he's here to answer any questions that you have from bart staff as part of public comment or as part of the item. >> i don't think we're able to take public comment on the bart item only because we only went through that, if we have follow-up, we'll approach you personally, so with that, public comment is now closed.

item 7. >> item 7, adjournment. >> all right, we are adjourned, thank you. ( meeting is adjourned ). [ ga] >> >> good afternoon the commission will control to order and the secretary will call the roll. >> commissioner chow. >> present. >> commissioner loyce. >> present. >> commissioner sanchez. >> present. >> commissioner pating. >> present. >> approval of the minutes of january 3rd, 2017. >> the minutes are before you for approval. i heard a motion for approval. is there a second, please? >> second. >> are there any corrections? >> i would like to make one correction, if ou