>> >> welcome to the san francisco planning commission i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind.

and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel and commissioner melgar and commissioner moore. >> commissioners commissioners, the first item on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item o1 29th avenue conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to march 9. >> next lion street has been withdrawn as item 3 hoffman avenue also withdrawn.

>> okay any public comment on the items proposed for continuan continuance. >> hello commissioners tidal can i have the overhead, please? this is a list of directives that came from the january 30th hearing before the commission and i would like to review i'll read what i had the project sponsor has 4 months to implement the june 30th, 2016,

commission directives in light of the directives with respect to the process i'm rewriting this memo to better state the facts i think this is a more fitting. >> jonas maybe to the project. >> i believe you're speaking of 437 hoffman. >> my apologies singles is june 20th, 2016, hearing the project was revised to keep the christmas tree the garage was moved to the south side instead of eliminated the height of the building will be increased rather than reduced part of breeze for light in the lower unit and chip from the northly neighborhood reducing the massing around the nellie

property windows. >> ma'am, i don't mean to interrupt you. >> if you what a withdrawal of the matter. >> i'm trying ms. swedish will follow me i'd like to introduce commissioners to the chances that i've seen before this withdrawal i understand a withdrawal the roof after the first 15 feet from the facade so sloped and with the buildings increased overall height is enhances the loss of sunshine and enhances the loss of sunshine to the nellie neighborhoods in addition to encourage cooperation by providing assess to the rear yard via the lower units the project is to actuate the excess

height to the neighboring homes and from the street view and sure the character of the neighborhood i wanted to pack that clear if in the 4 months the directives have not been take into consideration thank you. >> is the actual conditional use case has been withdrawn. >> the cu was withdrawn director rahaim because a hearing by the planning commission and it was continued they can only withdraw through the content of the planning commission so from the commission choose to come pull this matter avenue do consent calendar and make a motion to take action there was a public hearing. >> not the consent calendar. >> the continuance calendar

excuse me - >> hi good afternoon this project at 437 hoffman had twists and turns 3 dr requesters all immediate neighbors filed this the project was changed at the sponsors why and the hearings were tund continued to the spring of 2016 the commission shall i wait until they turn off their phones on june the commission heard the cu a on the screen to revise the project the commission was to review those on october 27th but instead the sponsor asked for - the commission denied october 27th and you set a hearing for today but now the project it is withdrawn a new 311 was issued the staff reports

ms. tran sent to be the 311 will be issued in order to be fair to the neighbors and more importantly for the process i'm asking the commission to grant the fee waiver for the 3 dr requesters if at the sign off please consider that today and please consultant with the city attorney if you need to at the hearing today since this is you're only chance to weigh in on the withdrawal i assume you'll allow the withdrawal you shouldn't you gave directives and passionate about our response to the project that people on hoffman avenue and my friend janet filed over a year ago this is something you need to consider a lot of craziness and one more thing since i have time in 2008, when it was commissioners war was here this project had a universe 2 to 2 a

nice single-family home and still can be you'll talk about later now a crazy thing i'll say the plans the second unit is below the garage i'll leave it at that thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment? >> on the items proposed for continuance. >> okay public comment is closed. i think commissioner johnson question. >> i move to continue it. >> you couldn't hear you. >> we're on the continuance calendar move to continue item 1 he are we talking about item 3. >> okay. so hang on commissioner vice president richards. >> if i'm really confused so it there another project what's the jurisdiction why what the cu

i. >> mr. tom can clarify. >> planning department staff filing in for mr. washington so my understanding from the planner handling the case the item before you is the withdrawal of cu and staff has determined this is didn't constitute and demolition therefore a cu is not required it is applicable the concerns by the neighbor can be addressed from the dr was filed during the 311 once it goes out for the next week or so that that give the community time to file the dr and things can be addressed during that phase. >> so the point being still a project but no longer with the redesign requires the cu so a

newspaper 311 will get out and if i may speak to the original dr fees have been refainted that's my understanding with the staff and the project planner so with regard to the refund the refund was issued any dr will be subject to the standard fee. >> so with other dr. >> we'll be back with a dr a cu is no longer required. >> one other clarifying question can we go to the calculations in the future with would that apply. >> it cu. >> it depends on the ability commissioner moore. >> could we get a confirmation

that the cu cost were removed this is a fair question we've estimating on it. >> i want to ask the project planner to speak. >> all fees have been refunded. >> probably commissioners what in in front of the acceptance of withdrawal of the application. >> commissioner paskin-jordjo >> we don't need to vote. >> in this case, i think you do. >> in most cases generally speaking the content for the withdrawal essential this is a request to withdraw doss because it has been before you unlike other withdrawals. >> so pardon me item 2 is

withdrawn. >> that's right as so i make a motion to continue item 1 as proposed march 9 and to accept the withdrawal for item 3. >> and 2. >> and 2 essentially. >> theoretically because it is on your agenda. >> oh, okay item 2 and 3. >> sorry. >> a little bit confusing sorry. >> commissioner hillis second. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> one other question it is what it is it is part cu a cu or not we have no choice the project will go come back and they can file a dr if we don't by the time let it die what's the point of that i don't get it. >> they'll no longer trigger the cu a but you can act on the

conditional use authorization that was before you on june 30th. >> commissioner hillis. >> that's all right. i was going to reiterate the same thing we're on the same plate where we take it or allow it to be withdrawn it will be the same project. >> okay there is a motion that has been seconded to continue item 1 as proposed and accept the withdrawal for items two and three. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson commissioner koppel. >> commissioner melgar exposure commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places us under our consent calendar are considered to be routine may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests

removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 4 for case fillmore street conditional use authorization item 5 case at 1111 boulevard conditional use authorization, item 6610 brandon street conditional use authorization and item 72230 lane street conditional use authorization any public comment on the two items on consent calendar. >> 3 sorry 4. >> okay public comment is closed. >> commissioner johnson. >> move to have the two items.

>> second thank you commissioners commissioner hillis commissioner johnson paw commissioner koppel. >> commissioner melgar and commissioner moore. >> commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places under our commission matter consideration of drifting. >> any public comment on draft minutes. >> i don't see any public comment is closed. >> commissioner johnson. >> accept the minutes. >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore. >> confirmation and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places us on item 9 commissions questions or comments. >> seeing commissioners item

10 election of officers with the rules of the planning commission of the president and vice president shall be elected on the first meeting held on or after january 15th. >> sdmoer. >> move to appoint commissioner hillis as president. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you move to appoint commissioner vice president richards as - >> second. >> we carry that as one motion commissioner hillis as president and commissioner vice president richards as vice president very good. >> on that motion commissioner hillis commissioner johnson is commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong former

commissioner fong. >> so moved. >> commissioners congratulations commissioner vice president richards and commissioner hillis very nice. >> yeah. >> (clapping.) >> i want to take the opportunity to congratulate commissioner hillis i think i'll be a fantastic job and vice president it my honor absolutely to serve the city at the seat to serve with you guys and director rahaim thank you . >> (clapping.) >> again my congratulations

move on to department matters. >> can i make one thank commissioner president fong when i came on this commission 4 one half jars or years ago we were talking about fee waivers and a lot things the pendulum swung and we responded to the demand for housing. >> affordable housing and the ms. campbell's of that and the affordability crisis you thought back on the issues we all grappled with the inclusionary housing and indeed the academy of art university adu, transbay and formula retail and implementing neighborhood plans and establishing certain neighborhoods it's a lot on the plate and i think did meetings have been conducted and policy

oriented and solutions i think commissioner president fong is a big part of the reason for that so we the way you've conducted yourselves and focused on solutions and providing for housing and maximizing affordable housing and preserving what is great about san francisco and the neighborhood character and the character of the city so greatly presenter our work and hopefully, i'll be similar thank you. >> thank you very much. >> congratulations commissioner hillis and commissioner vice president richards and thank you to the outgoing president commissioner president fong and for your leadership in the commission and encouraging the dialogue and that for all thank you.

>> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> also want to say thank you very, very much great to serve under you for a year i appreciate the steady hand and our - i'm going to miss our leadership to my left and right so that's good. >> great, thank you. >> very good guys have ca a good year. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to to departmental matters director's announcements. >> no new announcements only congratulations to commissioner hillis and commissioner vice president richards and look forward on behalf boost of the department to continue the great leadership and commissioners 12 past event and the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission no board of supervisors nor is there a board of appeals report.

>> good afternoon, commissioners tim frye department staff yesterday the historic preservation commission compound the first meeting of the year and there are a few items to share of note first of all, they continued their election of officers until they're first hearing in march several commissioners are waiting for reappointment by the mayor's office and can confirm by the board of supervisors, however, at the regular hearing the commission unanimously initiated landmark for the referenceer on mission avenue it earthly significant as one of the best architecture and the commission will hear it and make a formal recommendations to the board of supervisors we anticipate that in the next couple of months the commission also issued the last certificate

of occupancy with the final design for the brt stop - and the outcome for the trolley in front city hall and the commission unanimously approved for the restoration and a simplified design for the bus shuttle in front of city hall that will be different shaded than the rest of the corridor and finally the commission provided review and comment on 1076 howard street a project you'll see next week where historic resource will be

requesting a cu to allow for office within the m u g zoning district for the restoration and the commission made modifications to the proposal and asked for more rejections on the front facade bans the drawings that were present as part of project sponsors package and finally the hpc provided had an opportunity to provide review and comment on the draft eir for the central soma area plan no comments at this time and commended the staff on a thorough and good job on the analysis and the mitigation measures with that draft report and will be in front of you as well that concludes any comments and presentation unless you have a

couple of questions commissioner vice president richards. >> any portion on the inside as part of landmark designation. >> it includes the interior and the exterior not included the exterior of the commercial space. >> kibitzing. >> not relevant but it is the theatre department of the emergency management as well. >> no at the time of the designation we're not able to landmark the interiors of the polsinelli husch blackwell or privately owned space. >> maybe can i have you send us electronically the former on nomination for that. >> i'll be happy to. >> can you show a picture on the screen for us to look at some of the work being discussed for example, i don't have a visual image but secondly, this

commission will hear 10 plus howard street i would have liked to have a written assessment of the commission in response to the project in front of us. >> i'll convey that to say planner and they'll have a draft resolution to pass out at the time of presentation. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to general public comment general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i only note there were a number of speaker cards for bayshore boulevard on next week's agenda

but your opportunity will be under general public comment so - >> so i'll call names for public comment (calling names). >> spike you want to go ahead. >> hi my name is spike i'm harder of hearing and can't understand a word unless you into our trying to read the batted translation doesn't help and talking especially jonas can't hear a word you say and an art complex in the city legal and lots of fire escapes and we

had a meeting of artists the planning commission was not there the building department and fire department were there on january 3rd one hundred people and we're trying to help artists make their spaces safer not necessarily to code because many of them are in place not even possible to get up to code but definitely trying to make them safer we've been san bruno fire extinguishers and smoke detectors we're asking the city to call a task force to deal with the warehouses that are around people are working unsafely and living and we've asked the department of building inspection to call that task force half they - i sent an e-mail to mr. rahaim and have not heard back i hope we get the fire department and the planning

department together to start talking about how we can make those arts places safer and preserve the pdr spaces from development and further displacement felt community of artists that makes san francisco great most of the unsafe places are places of last resort people are doubling and tripling up a couple of raids from the fire department and i think without gettingal task force to address how to make those places save so the whole block didn't burn down the goal to find a solution and not have displacement happen to hopefully, you guys are more receptive i hope you call a task force we'll bring our community activists from the arts community to such a as soon as

it happens and also which i brought up several times the notices to the community the 311 and 312 and dr notices don't give a lot of information not what types of uses their cryptic and ask 80s notices get more information to the public and we can respond and act accordingly my box of information will help in a more timely manner thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners congratulations commissioner hillis and commissioner vice president richards and thank you commissioner president fong for out going commissioner president fong for your service a busy time so thank you here today to talk about the way the city does environmental review we were at

the he and she hearing a few weeks ago and a problem with the eir some are general to the way you do environmental review and with the transportation analysis and in a nut shell you're not using current data not your best knowledge to do do environmental review one the alternatives you've studied in the eir the only study is one alternative with regards to the parking so the code compliant was between zero parking spaces and .25 with the dwelling unit only evaluated one .5 doubling the amount so in our alternative analysis you need to look at the right alternative on parking because you're asked to do two things you're asked to say when our certifying the eir you study all the feasible alternatives as of

right and the other thing we asked you to do the parking requires and cu when you approve the cu you'll be asked to fine the car trips are not creating an undue impact and if you don't analysis that you'll not have a sound space to make that understanding the other way they do the parking analysis when this eir comes back to you, you you know from the research asbestos in the parking the more autopsy trip; right? unfortunately, the way it is analyzed the parking has no impact an autopsy trips from the 1960s that is rattling around in the environmental process so you

s - and data the other thing i've been in a position like on a body that has a certificates eir you'll be asked to say that is correct when you know and the people serving you know that is false the test analysis will be a bomb no transportation analysis guiles your departments work; right? not legislative but not the responsibility of your commission to adopt we would like to see you review this in light of what you timely and displaced it not updated in - it's long overdue. >> good afternoon i'm here to say a few words about a project on the calendar

for neeblgs next week next week on boulevard before i say that congratulations on election of new commissioner president and vice president and given the textbook example of transition of power (laughter) so basically, you guys about i think two weeks ago. >> heard in the port less than a mile away from the location that i think was a 3 hour hearing at the end you decided to wait to get more information that's basically, what we're asking today to not go over that next week another 3 hour hearing just asking to postpone so the public didn't have to come out and spend your time and our time

and not have an answer at the end i sent a letter one section of letter the cannabis will have a much broader appeal as evidence the outgoing bruno avenue legalization didn't necessarily mean at a neighborhood level and he i believe that commissioner vice president richards that was about the percentages of passages in the city 25 percent notable but in visitacion valley (inaudible) basically, all 50 percent some increases that we'll know for the legalization of machinery for the - i think you saw that will two or three weeks ago and see that next week if this goes forward i have a position but want to ask that

postpone it and give the community more time to think about it and discuss it and get the recommendations for the recreation all use how it effects the use here thank you, again will be a productive discussion but thank you, thank you next speaker. >> congratulations president commissioner hillis and good afternoon, commissioners i'm marlene a retired public school teacher and a long time volunteer thank you for allowing us to make a request for this regarding the mcd for the avenue to september 2017 in addition to several concerned citizens that licenses to your commission i've

sent e-mails to all the commissioners in the san francisco department as well as any priority mail to mr. commissioner president fong in my letter i referred to the following any long commitment to the community and lack of communication from the project sponsor and the project sponsor refused to meet and the lack of transparency from the property owner and the project sponsor and that postponement limits this effort and avoids - at the january 5, 2015, hearing regarding bruno avenue you commissioners decided to postpone the final decision until september to have issues clarified in consideration of the commissioner time and the requirement the residents take a day off to attend the hearing we hope you'll postpone to 15 as

well the start of later than you think year the rooster of the asian pacific islanders will be occupied for at least several days before presenting the homes and preparing the chores please honor our altercation and postpone the hearings to september given the fact that oriental ncd project was filed in 2015 or 2015 and given the absence of communication to our community during the 3 months it is reasonable for us to assume to accept the december 29, 2016, postponement request originally from russel a long time neighbor he just spoke to show transparent and accountability the project sponsor elevated systems should hold the discussion meetings

convention to the community and have a trafrlt so it is incongruous rat to have the residents attend a meeting scheduled before january 26th actually as late as yesterday and last night i received relevant information to this case please allow me want to investigate so i have our attention as you may know the architectal firm set the meeting one week from the hearing date thank you your time is up. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, i'm san francisco community empowerment center on bruno avenue and congratulations

commissioner hillis and thank you commissioner president fong for the past you know you did a good job. >> i come to request the commissioner to postpone on the mcd on bay store boulevard and hold all the ncd sill september because based on based on the january 5th on bruno i'm so sorry commissioner vice president richards made the comments on the january 5th on bruno avenue commissioner vice president richards proposed a motion to continue the hearing until san francisco regulations and the proposition 64 california

recently passed the recreation marijuana if we approve this today what worries me i don't know what we are approving for the future proposition 64 gives the county did ability to make more policy and more liberal and retrofication the second thing as said on january 26th this is the very important date as a chinese new year so on lets the chinese new year the commission didn't want to see three hundred to 4 hundred families without you know new year's eve diner

they have to come here to raise their voices i propose to postpone the ncd and all the ncd until you have a clear message thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello hi

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm translating for her. >> i'm a neighbor next to the 2442 bayshore project i've been there over 20 years the ncd project has not been doing a

transparent job on december 29th they only noted us on the day before the 28 and second for the hearing that is supposed to take place on the 26 of this month we only noticed us recently because this is a heavy immigrant community a lot of people don't understand english or have the english ability we need a lot of time to have input to notify the neighborhood and get the input from in and this site has been nearby so therefore i don't think they have been doing a transparency job because also the site is nearby a few community centers and family centers and programs this is not the right place to be as well as

childcare not the right place to be in addition chinese new year will be two days away from january the 26 everyone will be busy doing house cleaning cleaning up things in their home not a good time to from come befonew years eve we hope to have more time to understand the issue and work with the project. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah, we hope you will delay the project until

september 21st. >> next speaker >> i'm. >> sorry. >> i'm going to speak a couple of things i'm jose phone we've written e-mails and submitted letters with the project packet and have here in solidarity to support the chinese community and ask you delay this to september 21st, 2015 just like you have done for the project on bruno avenue with the same reasoning we need to wait for the marijuana task force and the site is 15 blocks away from san bruno avenue and we are hoping we respect our time and the time of the community to avoid the same experience of

mobiletion two weeks ago and again and again, we hear childcare are not a personal use and not in consideration that is a big concern we recycle you to delay that so we have more time to look at the planning code thank you very much and congratulations to president hillis and commissioner president fong for your dedication and service. >> thank you, michelle mr. kohl. >> a different topic congratulations first of all, to commissioner hillis and continue commissioner vice president richards in our steady hand commissioner president fong over the last couple of years i'm here to talk about the state density bonus you had an

entertaining hearing on the south of market which i'd like to think you were uncomfortable and not happy about the situation you're hands were tied it we have a lot of fun and had around the holiday and santa claus came earlier but state density bonus in some respect patrick kennedy might have done us a favor to look at the state density bonus is providing and needs to be recaptured in the inclusionary going through an update you might have received a memo from the department but provide i have copies of some materials that came from the last we called a technical advisory committee on december 19 for those of us were around during the holidays spent our

monday night in the meeting director rahaim was there it shows simple math we can't want to erode the inclusionary housing standards take on 7 percent to our inclusionary to equalize the value that the state density bonus provides to a typical project as you can see the numbers from the controller's office not from this is from their consultants a project ever 18 percent requirement be effective repudiation by the state density bonus of 15 percent that's the project in september in for the record to keep that even 24 requirement on this project because of 501 as you may know the recommendations to have a different inclusionary for rental and condo on condo they came in higher at the baseline

from 27 to recapture it is a big delta our state density bonus is might have have good use but in terms of a public benefit unless you recapture that you're giving a massive benefit to the private sector this is a matrix nice of our consultant you can pick a point on the inclusionary and walk across to fourth how to capture of density bonus program it is good stuff we'll see you next month for your hearing on the ordinance. >> is there any additional public comment? >> hello commissioners so i want to speak on that ncd this is not indoors to the bayshore but we heard about the

bay shoreline. >> continued those until september of this year many factors that led you to continue including a lax of clarification we heard they're waiting for clarification from you commissioners but we're concerned a moratorium it in place we want to know if other ncds what appear before you and receive approval that's it thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. swedish do you want to speak you have time. >> we don't believe you are - >> congratulations you're free commissioner president fong. >> free. >> (laughter). >> congratulations i love your hair much better than that you

know whose. >> you're great you're great i'd rather have ythan - i was t the board of appeals last night and no report because i think the project that was there would not come before you they've not filed a dr that's an unfortunate thing if that was a 6 to 7 thousand square feet project in addition to a historic structure the problem was that adjacent there were two houses on the lot the rear yard of the adjacent house to a cottage and the foundation issues 25 feet all that it raised again four me the issues of the r d g how we need that because the mashlt has

changed the developers are creating a almost generic market whether that is excavation can i have the overhead? but we were worried about about the neighbor she may have that where it in door becomes the out door on that lot so the traditional mid block is impacted and the other thing there were huge windows 10 feet if from hers and plus awning ground unit pursue this is a project that actually behind me that took a dr on 2014 and that's one hundred and 10 feet away from me at night lit up

like a christmas tree when the project was before you the glazing was smaller they changed it they can do that's why we hopefully this year we'll get into the r d g's the market is changing and demand are changing they need to be looked at in this great new world what happens in the eastern neighborhoods thank you and congratulations. >> thank you, ms. swishing any general public comment seeing none, commissioner vice president richards. >> oh, to the ncd issue i know we talked with director rahaim we this commission is looking for the values on what the department has imposed and the relationship between the medical i understand maybe a forth

coming. >> certainly commissioners you'll have a memo that describes where we think the regulations are going and can't speak for the future board of supervisors but the way the regulations are likely to be at least put forward this will be identified as a separate use from medical cannabis so if that's the case if that move forward that in that form you'll not - not be an automatic transfer that would be possibly and in other words, medical cannabis dispensary couldn't be converted to an adult use from the regulations move forward the adult use will be nodding a separate use and didn't know that last week we've put that in a memo again, i can't speak for the future board but this is very likely in our opinion to be the recommendations of the medical cannabis and just so you know we've looked at the holiday

schedule in the past that the hearings that new years eve we didn't cancel next week's hearing thank you next item. >> through the chair i was reluctant to talk about the future hearing through the chair back to commission matters on future agenda we've received a request from the mayor's office to consider housing owners together with the spiritualal and the them together to do that we will need to rinse state the february 23rd hearing on the current schedule has been cancelled so if commissioners you're available and like to add that to you're hearing schedule we should do that through a

motion and vote. >> any comments. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you is the mike on. >> sorry i realize the mike was off the whole time. >> jonas do we need to take public comment on that. >> it is 23 of february me comment on the run stating of february 23rd seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much yes, we are appears an important item we need to take up i move we restore the february 23rd hearing date. >> before we call the question on that one will this be a special hearing.

>> we're reinstating it today a regular hearing and it will be likely that we include a couple of informational items commissioner vice president richards indicate i'll be out on february 22nd and move to that calendar and have an open calendar if you choose to take up other mares. >> very good commissioner president fong. >> commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar exposure. >> commissioner vice president richards and wanting hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. >> on your regular calendar family-friendly housing an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners with the planning department staff and we are going to present our report that

was in your packet housing with families of with children one page of corrections and it is also the new version on the website as well we'll pass that out and in a second introduce the team who is definitely been a collaborative effort sheila and ann that worked on the report and annie is here and will help out with the sro work we're talking about with here is raul fernandez, there is (calling names) from the sro families announced collaborative and we talked about them he's here to answer questions we want to move to supervisor yee and let i am introduce. >> welcome supervisor yee.

>> thank you good afternoon. i want to thank you for hearing this item an important issue for myself and i want to especially thank those commissioners i discussed this with it felt pretty good the feedback and i want to start off by saying there are statutes you're familiar with this and certainly want to mention that mainly i'm sure the staff will mention that also i want the listening audience to also know about this status currently the percentage of households that actually have children in san francisco is that that 18 percent nationally about 29 percent we're although there in regards to the percentage of children in the city that are 18

and under the percentage is 13.4 and basically, what it is nationally is much higher than that the choice to we're almost half of the national norman wasn't that always, always the saying case in 1960, 25 percent of the population so what we see a slow maybe not so slow but quicker in climate warming so pretty rapidly in terms of decrease and i'm thinking well, you know there are places all over the world they're voting new unit and i see families with

children live in those types of housing and it is something i was curious i didn't notices that was happening for us in san francisco as much and so i was talking to a reporter this morning about this particular issue i see the analogy of that i say well my two daughters reached college age and moved out and my wife was happy and smiling and turned to me one day and said you know something maybe we should get rid of some things i go what you are you talking about. >> they're not living here nobody is using the beds wait a minute you realize we'll not

want them to come back if they need to be here if we removed the beds it is telling them by the way, you're not welcome here anymore she said well when i think about that maybe you're right for me is an matter of are we're going to welcome families with children or not are we're going to have the infrastructure that in the city to live and housing is one of the big factors and housing affordability but not basically building the family i think affordable when it comes to affordable housing people are building these and do a good job the market-rate not so good this is my motivation to push this and there's a lot of moving

parts how that we got here today with that report and about 3 years ago i basically said we have to do something about this i was on the school board. >> three years ago, i had gut feelings about things but no data i asked the national research firm to look at the issue and so what does it mean in regards to number one the trends of what happened where we always like this they said no what do you mean when cities and location losses the children and i think what we came up with pretty much supporting any gut feelings we know that when we cannot attract families with children in our city that proposes a challenge to the

cities ability it is the families that stabilize the neighborhood and the family is build in neighborhoods we experience a collective economic and cultural loss over the course of the generations i know the staff will probably dive into that a little bit so i started that conversation with director rahaim a four years and director rahaim what about family housing and that's with that dysfunction i realized we didn't have a definition of family housing so i starting asking developers you get two bedrooms and that's a family housing or three bedrooms we know that is important but eventually not the only thing

that is important as long as people purchase a unit or lease a unit in high-rise they have three bedrooms their children are gone it is more important than having bedrooms and from that i was able to talk to other people and realized my staff researched and are we only the only crazy people to have formal language around housing and several other cities throughout the u.s. already had that and why not san francisco and to the directors credit he said yeah do this so in 2015 i introduced resolution to ask for a report and for the staff to come up with recommendations and

you know the final answer to me what it is for me to stimulate the destruction around those issues and drive future policies around those issues we can say that we do care about our families the other thing that happened besides including policy and interim discusses in 2014 when i was putting together the proposition for the children's fund which we allocated funding for the public education and enrichment fund that totals one and thirty to $150 million a year people were focused on that piece and the mayor's office and myself felt that was important to add another impersonate into the proposition that was the creations creation of the

children council and the purpose of that is to have and to have most of departments within the city and the school board and the community come together to look at what is impacting families and children and to actively come up with a vision for the city so that all of us can make an agreement to line up behind that he and set goals and see if we can do better for our children and families to me i want it to be more aggressive not only addressing what is existing but the challenge from me to them the council was try to address are you satisfied with the lowest percentage of

children don't do anything but if you want to do better in san francisco we want to do better the challenge how to reverse the percentage to go upwards that's in the works and we'll have a hearing so several things are happening, in fact, feels like a cultural change sins the sgrin of this distribution director rahaim even with another agenda item we'll hear today for the tdm part of that discussion has included the family issues family and children issues in which many of those things are coming from this particular report i'm proud the staff has done a really good job in bringing out the issues and not just having a self-contained

discussion but basically working with other areas at this time where people begin to talk about family and children and united states of america three years ago when people tubed housing it is all about affordability i don't want anybody to be misguided i was going to talk away from that that is necessary but one thing that was discussed housing for families and children this is sort of how at least my office has approached this i'm happy we're lessor to be able to discuss this and even when i talk about cultural change in this discussion it is not just city departments but developers are beginning to talk about this i introduced one idea

a policy change in regards to all be hearing that soon in regards to the eastern neighborhoods with the developers they choose to do only two bedrooms i'm looking ways to motivate more of three bedrooms that came from a developer i'm talking to another developer about other ideas and i'm excited i'll not expose it that's what is happening people are starting to talk to each other about this i'm looking forward to in the future in working with not only the commissioners the staff but also the vendors verpz /* /-

developers i want to thank director rahaim he pretty much got what i was talking about and also want to thank the staff that is working on it because it - i believe that all parents; right? mostly parents sorry and having parents work on this with staff makes is big difference they're easy to talk to them about those things if you were a parents you could get it but not as rapidly as people living through that so thank you to susan and sheila - is that; right? and eddy for they're really fine work on this document here today so what's

next this policy argument is a discussion and really move forward to look at new policies i submitted and preamble to that report so people can actually what my vision is i'm not sure that is included but hopefully included in the future and this is - the other thing i want to make sure i mention i don't want anybody to think again that housing by itself is going to reverse this trend it is one of the facility issues it is an important issue i guess people are wondering why do you talk about schools and why not talk about this and that and why are you talking about childcare by

the way, i'm talking about childcare a lot this is one of the things we need to address and what are the recommendations that i want to request from the commission to adopt the include the framework and definition that family-friendly housing in the general plan so we can reference it as a conversation with the housing development so i'd love to work with the commission on those things and other policies in the near future and i'm looking forward to working with staff on having discussions one of the things you'll find ♪ briefing is a lot of good ideas - i strongly agree with some and don't agree with some but that's okay not about whether i

agree or disagree but have a lot on the table for discussion to see what makes sense for san francisco so in closing i want to say that the children we - we have people say that all the time children are our future then we as city civic leaders must plan for the future of the children i want to thank you for your attention >> thank you supervisor yee. >> are you going to stay around for the hearing. >> we will defer. >> thanks everyone okay. so i want to take a

minute and step back and remember you on the citywide program and then in another quick minute on the broader thinking of what we are proposing for the future for a final initiatiamily-friendly in - this is the 5 year work program in the division of creating a affordable in a different city a resilient and connected and affordable transportation system and speaking about how the family program fits within that we came up with a series of goals for this initiative and wanted to talk what we want to do today, we'll talk about the family-friendly piece of this and commissioner has been helping us we're hoping to come

back in april to initiate the legislation all the work on access to parks and open space and then transportation options work that the mayor's office and the da and supervisor tang initiated about school transportation and work with the mta and applied for a grant from caltrans and keep that work going and making the transportation and how that relates specifically to children and tropt and getting the kids around i'll dive into the housing initiate and so forth. >> so today, we're talking about households of kids under the acknowled age of 18 why do

the families are not here did that matter i think there are a number of benefits we outlined in the paper we wanted to talk about thinking about the sustainability of how we can get just people closer to their jobs in general and having a greater danced to go and time away from their kids and the public health department benefits and get around in different ways around the city and creating a city for everyone so thinking about a streetscape for users and kids and seniors and how that resonates with the city it is safer for them and safer for everybody that creates a better city overall and thinking about the diversity the cultural diversity how that is better for everyone and as well as having the doodles the majority of our

population in san francisco being imposed to the kids and how that benefits the school population. >> so as supervisor yee mentioned we have the honor with the - we have a city with the fewest kids and we looked at this to see what they're doing a quick look at our families what do by look like and their income and this is a chart that shows the barbell effect the blue line is 2000 and the red 2014 you see these two ended increasing and the dip in the middle and just how the wealthier and how the middle-income a snap between the

overall population kind of dive in and look is there anything different we saw the white population of kid is increasing and the white population overall is decreasing that's the option with the asian the asian kids are decreasing in age and decreasing overall you get often we see the graft on the right and is that any different for families in san francisco. >> so this is a map that is a lot of information packed into one sheet that is the number of kids and that's the number written on the map as well as the concentration of children and the population in that household i wanted to show that we often think of the south and the west of where kids are concentrated before you not loss the information that are kids in

the tenderloin and downtown and rincon hill and chinatown and all the neighborhood down here as well. >> so where are we're going next and what we think will happen that is the age range right now and as you can see we know this is the large population of 20 to 34 years old this is the biggest group one thing we wanted to look at what is next the average age have a child that 33 and what's next we've seen this group for urban amenity and walkability but in the past you know the tendency to leave once people have kids. >> the status needs to indicate you'll see an increase in projections an increase in

child population from the zero to 4 and 4 to 17 and been working with the unified school district this is a great collaboration to dive into the data and get a picture of where the kids are in the ucsf population they've worked with us and looked at it their projection and the multiplier effect of inclusionary all those things their project by project an increase in their population as well. >> so what do we do with all of this the two biggest things we want to look at is the affordability so a quick snap of 2015 showing about 9 percent of our unit on the market contaminate that is the minimum for bedrooms and the

affordability for area medium income families this is only worse since 2015 and then just a quick discussion on the size and changing the shifting over time what we are building and how we are building when we build new units and shift to one bedrooms and a shift away from the larger stock a snapshot on the kind of units we're creating so here's a couple of recommendations we have we're going to walk through what we can do on minor expansions downsizing the housing stock and building new for families. >> so how can we make it easier for the minor expansions that happen when people need to add a little bit of space and

lucky enough to own their home how we can make that process easier and the housing stock you know we noticed the blue on the bottom that's right i'm sorry the green is the family i can't read that it is the blue the blue is the green is the families with children option this is you see that in the sros as well as in the three bedrooms so their seven hundred families in sros right now and if you see in the three bedrooms this is a greater percentage of families without children we want to think about folks that want to downsize we don't want to have to take on to roommate what they're a senior but options we can help to open up that housing

process. >> a couple of ideas an idea of a smaller between something that can be done in our house over time or in a unit you imagine a separate space and decide to rent out that extra space for someone and your kids want to have it and you want to go back to that. >> i mentioned those are the cities we looked to for guidance vancouver and i noticed how they keep 33 percentage of the population of kids they've seen not as high prices nickel and dimed if you maintain that kind of child population you're hoping doing something right as and then as i mentioned building new for families and what those

look like an in depth look at a number of different ideas we looked at the site level the building level and the unit level and so this we'll pull out a couple of quick examples we're hoping to see more a research design as we get feedback how we can make sure we have this in a better package and format so site levels thinking about the transportation discussion we had how do people get around and provide car solutions like that. >> bike storage thinking about a need to increase the quantity of space to allow for larger bikes simple things that signal

more room here for families the building level suggested better late than never the on how it is programmed what is there it's uses you know what are the types uses i think we see great example in affordable housing you'll see a site developed with the family in mind and the direct assess like yesterday direct assess to the baked and courtyard and a play structure have all the back space was used as a computer lab and thought of how families what families need to live here. >> and unit level characteristics all done in the report is if you're interested

in diving in thinking about the daylight and a way to incentives and end larger unit by changing some of the requirements here. >> so the next concept in the kind of building new is this idea called the missing middle and example of a type of housing here on this graphic it may happen in san francisco in the past but - thinking about how we can provide this type of housing provide the solution for families just some examples of images of san francisco what many looked like and what fits in with the neighborhood and provided again, just a little bit more options especially for more affordable options in the neighborhoods and then the last image is

technically not doable on the screen but the left-hand side is the picture of the plays where that exists with the density is exceeded in those areas a lot of these examples on the previous slides and so showing where this always is in the city housing in the city context. >> so just to finalize it we want to think about the housing stock and the tools to make that easier for minor expansions we want to look at the situation and work with the sro alcoholic on overcrowding in sros and they have completed a report and want to work with them to take that to the next step learning about resident in larger units and proper incentives for opening up that

housing stock and then this find solutions for considerations and characters we mentioned as well this idea of missing middle and where we can take that that concludes my presentation. we're all here for questions. >> thank you very much opening up for public comment one additional speakers line up on the tv side of room tom dulling visual. >> tom with livable city. >> thank you for a great set of questions we look at this questions of how you can make san francisco family-friendly one of the thoughts we have to look at walkable community so the portland called that the 10

minute neighborhood when we do neighborhood planning how to make neighborhood walkable with people are children that's a great question i live in the mission on a quiet street from busy streets and some have car owners with kids and these neighborhoods are walkable you can get to the park and the playground and transit and to schools and shopping and get to the things you need changing our paradigm like how to create that you know put everybody in walking distances and also street safety a study by dcyf a few years ago i couldn't find the one line but families with kids why do you leave and a unit costs too much we are familiar with that the third on safe streets we note to deal with

street safety we need a neighborhood plan and needs to be comprehensive and complete and traffic calming plastic bags and streetscape plan that goes with them to make the neighborhood not walkable walkable i see this in my neighborhood i live on a quiet street but on superintendant guerrero no families request kids none that i saw but on my street the kids play on the streets to walkable communities is important you can look at you're over policy with the administrative bulletin number one with the residential building and restrictive if you want to build rooms with the inhabit level there is a restriction like to the outside you can't have a full bath the

goal to stop people from in-law units and we can give people the flexibility how to arrange the houses you ought to allow people to convert that concludes my remarks to living spaces if you're family grows and start with car storage it is illegal to turn that living space into a living space you might think that the car space is not as important they should provide that. >> and if we convert to an - the missing middle housing is faifblth a lot of cities are experimenting like portland we are having monster single-family homes and easy in most zoning district for a 4 thousand or 6

thousand square feet single-family wow. a family of 20 living there the fact a family of 20 will not live there on rich people you're better off having a housing - looking at those missing middle you'll have to have more flexibility but the missing middle what about productive for san francisco in single-family homes thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners president of the polk street association thank you for to the the department for putting together this report and as you may know i'm a father of too young children live in nob hill area and it is really hard to be a family and raise kids in the city you know it costs a lot of money

first and foremost the cost of living is a big one i think i've jotted down some ideas if neighborhood folks are talked about one of the ideas of age in place a lot of folks living in the city are getting older may have more spaced than they need for example, building an adu in home so they can age in the home maybe live in that and rent out the upstairs that's a benefit once you have that adu it is rent-controlled so i agree with mr. dulavich on the home expansion this is a great city if you can for the record a mega 5 thousand square feet home in noah valley or someplace if a breeder zoning district is rh2 well to is you're going to expand you need two united

frankly that is better to have two 15 or 16 hundred square feet unit a than one single-family with the square feet so maybe some incentives to create for folks to create two bedrooms or three bedrooms with inclusionary housing we have families with two bedrooms and often two kids in the bedroom and mom and dad in other rooms like any family the notion you'll not live in our home forever you may buy a condo or rent a two bedroom and be there for a couple of years and maybe have a kid and maybe move to the west side or move to the east bay or other portion i think assess to childcare is really important inclusively is

trermgs expensive in the city and hard to get into a spot you know, i see the childcare downstairs for example, it is frightening in the civic center not a ton of childcare options i think neighborhoods services for families you know you want to be able to take our family out and have a remarkably priced male is two-star restaurant that is expensive one of the nice things about going out to the richmond district have a family-friendly affordable meal just some thoughts thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, i do have any tunnel relation of noah valley in a monster home i can't help that that's where i live i agree

about the homes i would rather have i don't think that people want the big ones. >> thrilling you can't say that the rh2 why in god's universe why put two staff united that gets me to the section 317 i have 1 down the street they took away a stacked unit put in underground a big monster home maybe that could have been two units i've got in noah valley since 198 of you have parks and especially transit and people love al invade that is two please close that loophole you'll see a lot of the projects in front of you

this year and take a second unit well - i'm not an expert in real estate what with crotch condos a condo you don't have to live in that maybe a cooperative you have to live if you build 3 bedroom units and someone had a one one bedroom apartment in new york city but two bedrooms or three bedrooms apartments if people are not living there and putting their money down a safe haven or whatever think about cooperative recapturing airbnb my suggestion you give tax amnesty oh, airbnb we want to come back into the market whether a rental and again, the

r e t the south west quadrant in the mission those single-family homes moderate expansions not negative expansions but the one i mentioned last night at the board of appeals 6 thousand square feet and a huge kitchen this is family-friendly maybe you can't control that but all the places are lapsed none wants to live with a young child please think about that when you talk with the developers thank you very much. >> sir. >> thank you, commissioners from the council of community housing organization i want to expend my thanks not planning department staff and supervisor yee so for bringing 24 before you i think an important item

one of the things that sue presented a table of changes that happened in terms of types of unit mixes that are in new market-rate development our city has a stock that is historically 60 percent large family-sized units but the market is producing is to see and one bedrooms they're not a market for families and families not interested on the details about how many children there are in the city by the different income levels not tha there are is not a market but the marked that incentive lists developers to put as many unit especially there is no density limits let's pack as many studios. >> this is not a new issue a

huge debate about that 2007 and 2008 you are the predecessors have zoning for the eastern neighborhoods that require a certain amount of two bedrooms perhaps it is time for you all to consider something like that citywide what is the appropriate unit mix knowing what your city has done like toronto a 10 percent unit for every development and has a wide range of development mixes. >> but one of the things that sue mentioned is that our affordable development is with family unit if you build a two bedroom or one with a den a market-rate you know that is for a family or an entertainment room or jim whatever the

affordable housing with the inclusionary housing we built one market-rate if they're larger units dedicated for families i know that family will move on this was brought up around our february 23rd meeting you'll consider section 317 and the updates to the inclusionary housing perhaps we have a minimum unit mix as family-friendly again thinking by a what we developed 40 percent of our family unit have two bedrooms and 20 percent of our units are three bedroom units perhaps apply the same standard to all inclusionary housing from now on thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i will build on fernandos contempt with the housing organization but

give you any bona fide two kids bond and a sfgov more and one of the things that i know that commissioner melgar what relate to this as our kids get older they need more space and to the point i think we have graciously 12 hundred square feet is busting at the seems with kids but i have to through any high school kid out of the house size matters and i want to reiterate what fernando said you see with what the market is in the reverse direction supervisor yee and everyone at city hall wants to see more families whether in their low income or middle-income the only way we get those things is intervention

we have to confront from the policy stand point more housing for families we'll make you do it not ass inspire and cross our fingers that's a tough lift we'll require bold policy interventions and frer in the witness stand talked about that the fight over the three bedrooms was huge a lot of fight and police conversations we finally one quote/unquote but started higher we wanted more 40 percent, 60 and loss that to 40 percent at 2s that is time to be bold and lift the bar but perhaps citywide maybe exceptions in city neighborhood but make it a family-friendly city more than south of market and the upper market district the other issue you need to

think about is the size of unit two bedrooms was a proxy and now 6 hundred and seven hundred didn't make a difference you need to figure out bedroom size we don't have a choice we're so told how big the configuration because folks based on impeccable evidence from a functionality to have family-friendly housing maybe you should apply those standards to market-rate housing because this is political rhetorical but only happens with strong policies we're happy to work with the commission. >> thank you to the staff and supervisor yee for kicking this off. >> next speaker >> i've been before you

several times when our approving the exceptions for the rear yard requirements i came here with a stack of them usually the same information we're looking at larger development he get all the noticed and one .15 or 20 notices of monster homes taking out rear yard none in the mission when you take away the rear yard no place for the family-friendly kids to go you do it week after week approving the exemptions that take away the rear yard reminded you have a power to do that without changes is asking for exceptions thank you. >> thank you good morning corey smith on behalf of the bicycle coalition. i want to reiterate the appreciation to the staff and the colleagues has kids and this

is a high priority for him and the commission going forward i think pretty much everything was stated i want to reiterate number one taking a holistic view not just judge about the housing but the need for open space and have that become available that is golden gate park to get more housing around golden gate park the other aspect that was brought up by a speaker and peter correctly reminds me the details are critical 80 percent of two bedrooms and three bedrooms required the legislation is pending at land use and the not one of the

details that was overly discussed but give it some it out. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on item >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson >> thank you very much i guess we're all talking about happy birthday there will be one tomorrow. >> (clapping.) >> i made it. >> so i'm super excited to be here this is a really excited report thank you supervisor yee and his office and the staff for the report and more recently with me on childcare legislation as local and state level i think some of the changes will go a right thing way for childcare and be cheaper with regards this is a great discussion and i would love to sort of in summary

take supervisor yee up on his wish that we would craft a policy in the general plan i was starting to be supervisor yee inspired me with legislation on childcare with the inclusionary unit and really did research and saw not a lot that targeted family-friendly and children acceptable facilities in our general plan the general plan has a whole a lot of the seconds and not a lot of family-friendly units are ridiculous we need to change that in summary if i can put them in categories the first is in terms of both in the report with supervisor yee as advocated for and what i heard public comment is about creating more unit; right? there is tyler lots of activities some

further along than others about an adu legislation that hopefully over time work into a woo to create more unit we heard a lot of public comment about unit mix standards and what can we do in various ways when i definitely agree with and not today but in the air no pun at the end height; right? talking about creating higher unit size taking up more space for the unit you have to find ways to make the blocks fit so i don't think we have had a discussion without talking about heights and then creating more united we think this is fair i'll not spend a lot of time but the other piece was about making the

unit there continental existing for families and i feel there is something that we can also as a city find ways to address do we need to create some sort of vacancies or tax unit people have in them when you're in public housing not to be 2, 3, or 4 people in a one bedroom apartment so obviously we're not going to that far with public-private property but how is that we can accommodate things are things like age in placeing and what we think about for now is sort of building a neighborhood design for families if so what i took

away from the report how we should be looking at to make their way dots into the planning code the conversations that came up late last year we were talking about buy right housing a potential state law that came down and other changes became clear we get super clear about the types of buildings we want to see in the city so i was existed to see some of the ideas for the unit design is actually not unit count but size a percentage of multiple bedroom unit the base and beyond that that is a number of other building design issues that combo play with you talk about families like dine of common space and commercial and residential space how they're separated open space and rear yard space lots of things we

consider how two bedrooms and three bedrooms are i'm excited to dive more deeply into those considerations and hopefully make their way into the planning code and building code and the neighborhood design like creating more units is actually lots of things on pathways to assess are happening for example, lots of bedrooms in walkable neighborhood and the tdm we'll talk about in a minute and where open space things like that and take a measure of what we're currently doing and see if we need additional things appreciate it thank you to everyone for coming out today. >> commissioner president fong. >> thank you want to thank supervisor yee for bringing this up we've thought about that a little bit and hyper focused on affordable housing and smaller unit but the

pendulum swing i think i think your lives change and people leave and become by nesters in san francisco in the last couple of years single folks are moved into the city and someone gets pregnant and hopefully they'll stay here and keeping ahead of that curve as supervisor yee initiated this to stay ahead and provide the housing given an opportunity to stay in san francisco i'm absolutely in support of throughout some of the bigger projects been an advocate of misrepresent larger unit that are two or three or 4 bedroom unit and combined with a pathway door to expand if you want to rent the unit next door and this is very important not

to think about those unite as a totality but how schools how far away schools and the system of schools and hospitals and we can have a reach to those units on my mind is mission bay i'll be curious any schools are planned we put in a bunch of housing and heads are shaking but want to make sure we are thinking one step ahead of each other but in support thank you, again, for bringing up that up. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards. >> a lot hit me on the presentation and public comment so thank you for the public comment so sum up we're doing this right thank you to supervisor yee for bringing this up we need a good public policy

and tells you what is going wrong and thank you to staff for the rich information we can act on a have a handful of things i can look back and say what happens we're getting it right when pubically funded unit and public housing we build a unit to have a family unit we get a family unit in the private market those are admirable we hear people say we have rules that counteract to have a garage to not close it off and make a bedroom we need to change that some rules ms. swedish brought up over and over i talk about that and homes that are going to

be demolished right and left starter homes and some on mine street in the 200 block and 15 hundred square feet each their affordable we approved like a 5 thousand square feet unit and 6 hundred square feet or 8 hundred square feet unit it is sort of sizes like the unit we diminished no families will live will i look at the affordability and see the basis think this 452 can you find a unit for 452 with bedrooms i don't think so you can try it that's crazy i believe 9 percent is a lot lower than 9 percent we are making that worse and if we talk about thing that the mission the

density if we have a monster home in an rh2 we need two unit that's number two we are creating unit none will live in you get our two unit because of minimum size none will live there maybe airbnb and the density same thing i think the issue that i'm struggling with the some of these are go ideas we have to make sure we have a our friends the building inspection on board to make that easy to expand without notification and can't have an issue to demolish a building you have to put tight rules and have to enforce it otherwise people are going to find a way to gain

the system we see that all the time with georgia swedishs pictures we have to say dbi involved otherwise we'll not make progress we see this all the time i think end - we have to allow more flexibility i think someone brought up you have kids gone and you want to rent that and the kids come home but you can't no fault in and 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 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 human services 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 good morning and wel

government audit and oversight committee. i am the chair aaron peskin. hold on. okay. thank you madam president. good monching welcome to audit and oversight committee for today thursday january 19. i'm thechair of the committee supervisor aaron peskin and joined by london breed and shortly doob joined by vice chair nurmen yee. the clerk is erica major. >> please silence cell phones.