2014, 2015 should mirror the adjustment for dbi and that's it we'll be back in two weeks and also be presenting to the historic preservation commission one more time in two weeks ago and then we submit to the mayor's office february 21st been a few months of back and forth with the mayor's office and the board of supervisors and the entire city has the budget in july >> i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and we'll come back. >> we'll take public comment first but maybe commissioners questions opening it up for public comment i've got two speaker cards georgia swedish and tom if anywhere else want to speak

please line up on the screen side of the room. ms. swedish. >> thank you commissioner president hillis and other commissioners hello and - i found that memo in all my papers from mr. ionin not dated but started with things you want action items started september 2014 and it end july 16, 2015, i assume symptom in the summary of 2015 the ting that caught any eye requests phenomenon 2014 by commissioner vice president richards for a residential design guideline and it was to be determined so i guess my question about the budget is where is that in the budget is that going to happen this year will the residential design guidelines being dealt with in the work program number

5 or possible to deal with that in the grant i see you have a grant from the foundation your application will be going in the residential design guidelines are were done in 2003 a quarter of a century old i don't know if you want to apply for that but a potentially logical thing to apply for think of that marilyn monroe some like it hot a quarter of a century makes a girl think makes the planning department staff think i guess i had a question i'm sorry, i didn't hear from the presentation what that four and a half million dollars draw oh, here - in the non- personal

services i want to understand maybe do something that the residential design guidelines thank you very much. >> thank you mr. dulavich. >> good afternoon, commissioners tom i talked about the complexity versus complication if you're going to have a complex way to do it with the least amount of explanations those tasks are important but not urgent watching you do our work lawful urgent things you're dealing with emergencies you're putting out fires so all those things going on but if you're always working on that stuff your reacting not planning; right? some part of your energy

needs to be reversed retired *- reserveed this creates a bunch of work at the counter and keep on plowing through that the better course can we do some work and focus our energies in such a way to make that better in the future investing some of our budget money in those things important but not urgent the essential task of making what you do better i think that is important so on that line there are things we want to see in the budget you know we've been here a while and heard me talk about things in the budget one more neighborhood planning the whole disconnection of mcd that was meant to be a

conservative change you're getting all the information in another way the neighborhood don't have a way and the planning department needed to talk to them we're going on 10 years since the last it eastern neighborhoods and the central corridor and plans there is no neighborhood planning program here at the department we think you need that and the neighborhood plans need to look at land use and transportation and streetscape and think of those two western edition in bayview they got abandoned from the planning process both of the neighborhoods service the planning and zoning to make their conceptual plans, and, secondly, the updates in land

use you need to read it and see if it is a picture of the land use and the transportation element is two decades old refers to the bart and the sfo and some of that really needs updating climatic change and equity and environmental justice we urge you to add those things. >> thank you mr. dulavich. >> any additional speakers on the budget seeing none, public comment is closed. and open up for commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> was it over the years i've been supportive how you're laying out the budget it is difficult to understand some things of how you fill those but simplify what you do i appreciate the process for which you've attend you're kind of

making due iowa you're doing the one thing i'm curious about has this budget at all been discussed in light of the fact that as a sanctuary city we'll be under pressures by which 9 vulnerability of our previous clients i don't have a better word to react to it and make that more difficult to do the things we will do that's what i want to you know. >> the currently the mayor's office is unable to projection exactly what will happen with the levels of federal funding this is a question mark everyone has this budget is predicated on the current year continuing if is it appears that revenues

will change in increase or decrease because of variety of changes we could see at the federal level or the local level are legislation san francisco specific weigh, of course, adjust the budget accordingly as we're doing in the current year the revenues are lower than than projected we saw that a few months ago we're not sure how the year will end but adjust our spending to match the reality so absolutely every budget is a plan we always, always look to see if we can have any flexibility we do have - >> go ahead. >> we do have a large number of applications that we are still currently working on that he some of the - accounting

related to when a project begins and with our work in the department and when it ended means we will continue to bring money on the book from projects that began in prior years if there are major changes that either the federal situation state or the local situation will change in the planning department we should have a little bit of buffer with our finances to finish the projects that we already have in process or in the cue and give us a little bit of time to adjust moving forward. >> the only thing i'll add if you look at on page 3 it owls the general revenues if there are cuts to the city's allocation from the federal government that will effect that last listen the general funds the rest of the revenues come from other sources that is in

our the good news i guess this is a relatively small part of our budget but could affect that 2 point plus million dollars figure there was a substantial cut from the federal government that will affect the city's overall budget. >> for example, we talk about transportation it will be projects that planning them right now will make sense relative to picking up what mr. dulavich said on the other end actively pursuing them should or shouldn't do them there's no realty that's the core of any question but the second part of my inquiry you're talking about flattening the revenue you're seeing slightly fewer project did in the not reflect itself. >> that's the reason we're not

proposing any new san francisco aging & adult services commission staff that is the first time in 6 years we're not proposing new staff. >> i thought that we'll have a large impact but interestingly to see when the allocations come forward in the next few weeks i want to add to mr. dulavichs idea of planning many supervisors bring forward interesting legislation of parking then supervisor wiener suggested the use of solar energy and new construction for three and four that raise the question why has the city not done collected solar based on heights and we're building solar small business commission on roofs that type of advance being

ahead of curve i'll strongly encourage to be an item in studying the dollar taking in order to bring this forward. >> thank you commissioner melgar. >> hi so i like it you're being more aggressive on the grant funding it's fun and innovative i'm wondering if we are successful in getting grants does that reduce the amount we are taking from the general fund or does that mean we add staffing or activity. >> it generally means i'll perhaps ask others to be more specific the general funds are typically for certain types of projects sometime usually not for staff is that right?

for consultants working on project managed by staff but we don't have the expertise but typically the grant money is for that purpose. >> that makes sense what's the relationship between getting the grant fund in the work plan does that mean if we don't get it we'll not move forward. >> it varies by project i'll ask sheila but the consultant work is on top of what staff is doing and the others probably moving forward. >> hi sheila staff. >> grant writer - >> i can walk you through the grants on that list to give you a better sense of what programs those cover

i'll use my chicken scratch notes i'll walk you through we have two pending proposals one from the california department of transportation with the sustainable grant program and that is to advance the work that started last year will i the ta and mta around student access there was a scaurvey - thank y you so that will be to do that. >> sfgovtv can we go to the overhead please. so the bulk of that funding from caltrans to work on that project the other pending one we have right now we've submitted the

rudy for urban excellence that is to get acknowledgement for a completed project we applied for the playland the 43 project and the first one is the priority development fund that is total federal funding that comes from the help adrenalin transportation yet one of the few sources that will fund eirs to asking see if there is a project that needs that and the second one i mentioned and pen friends the city mr. haney we get 60 to thousand dollars from them and to help with the conferences and special projects in the spring we'll apply for the california preservation and those are grant and general go towards the consultant costs to

augment projects that number 5 we found out didn't get that one but may reapply next year and the urban design and the san francisco foundation is refocusing their work on entity with our group focused on entity we put in a project we requested money to support community-based organization and engagement with the plans so will fund our staff time. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much thank you to the staff for the presentation and the memo as years prior we look at the figures i appreciate the breakdown find that is much clearer than trying to look at the minute california tables i think - i don't know i take

issue with a projection of increase or decrease of any line item over the years or any particular item of the work plan i'm echo mruch and call for neighborhoods planning and i think those are good expects should be looked at and seeing if their important but i don't know their superseding the items on the work plan maybe a and/or but my main concern the one piece about the budget summary and the presentation gastroi don't know. i get a what are we getting the overall goals and metrics we're trying to achieve what is that other than the day to day flow of the work of doing the environmental work the eir and environmental mraktsz and looking at the project

application and you know from beginning to end the q and a and coming to the planning department the work the planning department some of those nipt and other broader projects i don't get a sense from the way we described our budget verbally and within the memo and other places what are we trying to achieve you know what side you know- and that having that summary will help us know the increases or decreases are serving the goals of project are reactive to how much money we can spend i'll ask director rahaim i feel this is not necessarily a discussion of any one line item whether or not it is variable or not or should go up and down or whatnot.

>> let me see if i understand your question i think you're asking the overall kind of 5 year or 105 projection of our work plan i will say it is about 80 percent of the department maybe a little bit less - 2 project reviews in some capacity yet current and environmental planning and that is focused on the project we see about 80 percent in the citywide mr. haney and the legislation team and that mr. dulavich talked about including the neighborhood planning. >> i'll say two things on the 80 percent i guess an 80, 20 percent rule with the budget i love to know the 80 percent do we have any goals or metrics in mind how products are moving

through the pipeline in terms of you know with staffing; right? we recognize a little bit of a slow down in the pipeline we're not looking at for there in staffing does our budget account for any additional changes that might be made to make thing more efficient or more you know i'm trying to get a sense of what the dollars we are spending on our work where that is getting us in terms of the 80 percent how our dollars have allocated to the flow of projects are we changing the way things work or a matter of you know we have a process in place it is we're spending this amount of money on staffing what we are getting it probably something on the other end - >> certainly we keep track the timelines and goals we didn't

bring those but can certainly share those with you it that will help. >> commissioner vice president richards is better about this than me i think that is incumbent to make sure that we are making sure that every budget dollars a spent as extinguishing /* /- - is making sure we're always saying that every dollar we spend is - if we are adjusting our budgeting to make sure the process in place meeting the needs of today; right? that's what i'm looking at either our

staffing level do they meet the demand of the work anything we can change about our process does the budget reflect needs to change those i guess for the 80 percent and the 20 percent i can make that point a lot clearer we have major planning initiative i want to have a better understanding pain this is another informational we have to make a headline what is the goal of all of these initiatives; right? the ones we're putting budget dollars in. >> what are we know trying to achieve in doing overseeing projects versus other ones not a question to answer for today as a commissioner make comments that i feel like that is sort of

that headline is absent missing from the budget discussion it was missing last year and but the ideas that i'm having probably could be better formed i'm usually better he felt that was important i spent a lot of time reading through the memo in preparation for today, i felt there was something missing - if i had to up and down vote on any given line item or up and down say hey this initiative not that initiative i don't know. i would have a framework to make that decision if i can't have a framework it is challenging for me to have do anything other than say the budget looks fine not a framework to say the budget should go this way or that way i see your face not

good not good (laughter). >> to remind you part the reason the citywide planning that 20 percent prepared the 5 year work plan they have updated two months ago if i'm happy to have further discussion about the specification i thought we were being clear about the direction of those nechts being about and how we're moving forward maybe we need to be clearer in the future presentation. >> i think the marrying - so if i went down i sat in informational hearings i think what i'm getting at that would be helpful in terms of budget to make sure we're lining up the story why those work plans matches up to the budget request so - because our budget reflect our values and the things you want to do; right? when i

looked as an example housing for all; right? and i see the staffing at that higher than a resent waterfront say there's a reason for that maybe not as much work or you're getting consultants or consider housing for all a higher priority i'd like to have the headline on where the departments priorities are so that can be reflected in my view of the actual dollars that is going into the budgeted i them like there is something about that framework that is missing and challenging for me to say anything other than this looks good you know, i would love to be able to say that looks good but

have a better setting of that. >> commissioner moore. >> i've been carefully listening to commissioner johnson deliberations while she was talking i was looking at a table proportionally how to allocate the costs in that table the portions are numbers 7 is .6 percent to 72.7 percent in the next two circles will be used while the rest of the creation of products that involves materials, supplies and capital, overlay, etc. is less than 205 percent so you are asking what do we have to pay in other words, to get a product. >> uh-huh.

>> that the large gap between those two numbers when you condense it to the statement i'm making in the department. >> well, maybe - it's true been 70 something percent of our budget is salary we're not a department that builds roads the evaluate majority of the work is by staff that's why that is over 70 percent of our work so maybe i'm not understanding our question. >> i'm trying to find a reason to get more substance what it costs that's the question about trying to bring into context the effort and what we are getting for that it is not a criticism when you look at the abstract number and percentages and breaks down.

>> in that light weighing we'll do a better breakdown to establish our fees and looking at the performance measures that we have established how we're doing before the next hearing. >> will it include how specific projects have performed with the cost and the difficulties that made them go over budget that would be helpful to have a little bit more understanding of the process as it is not just the percentages. >> okay. >> thank you there was a specific question about the residential design guidelines in urban design guidelines can you just let us know that work is if you wanted in that gusts a quick. >> jeff can give you the timing. >> that's important to the

commission. >> and public. >> so unlike the urban design guidelines that is are in process and coming towards final adoption in the imminent future we have portions of staff allocated if citywide and current planning focusing on that project when that is complete we'll be featuring into the residential design guidelines hopefully that's to start in the fall. >> great, thank you. >> all right. thank you for presentation and see you again for consideration of the budget. >> let's take the next item and take a thirty minute break. >> very good on item 13 the academy of art university development agreement that is an

informational presentation. >> soak so commissioner before we start i want to introduce this item as you may know there was a number of recent negotiations been the city and the academy of art university to resolve the lawsuit it was filed at the academy an term sheet that has been signed by the city and the academy of a broad owl and today is actually give you the more detailed on the term sheet and other next steps moving forward the city attorney's office is here to talk about that. >> good afternoon honorable-

commissioner president hillis and commissioners as director rahaim said we have assigned a term sheet and it i think the last time we were here we were awaiting a development agreement application which was initially filed an december 16th - 19 which was one of the milestones as part of term sheet earlier this week or late last week director rahaim sent a letter to the representative on the application identifying some deficiencys some areas that needed to be filled in on the applications our hope is that that is done

as i understand that the process is once the application is deemed complete will come back to the commission for an action item and i think that will be including the the studying of fees on the application anticipate there will be negotiations between the city and the academy and the representatives on the details of the agreement staff has placed place holders once a month been now and july so as need be will be coming back in front of the commission and the public are an action item or - an information item i want to quickly do on overview

the educators of the areas that will be addressed in the development agreement as you recall a number of the staff recommendations on either the plaques for code changes or youth authorizations were denials those denials are based on in many respects based on the academies removal of illegal commissioners will address a remedy or resolution to that. >> the development agreement will- one category i'll go

through the categories and then community-based deeper into them revolving the affordable housing dealing with and linking the student housing and metering, the project approvals, the future expansion, payment of all fees and penalties and how the agreement will be endorsed going forward in terms of the affordable housing two exponents there is one of the component is to deal with the illegal conversion of the housing and the removal of about one and 40 rent-controlled units to deal with the the first issue

the academy will is committed to provide between one and 42 and one plus new affordable housing units for low income community members the housing will be 100 percent affordable over 66 year lease to persons with incomes up to 50 percent of area medium income to address the second educate of one and 40 rent-controlled unit the academy will pay approximately $7 million into the city's fund which is used to buy are rehabilitate small multi tenant buildings to help low income and moderate income renter who are particularly sews acceptable to

evictions rising rents in terms of the thought second educator the metering the academy is committed to all future student housing needs will be met on the properties zoned for such use or conversion of non-residential pdr structures the academy will not promise new students for housing unit that the number of lawful unit at their disposable and not temporarily house the students in a non-academy facility

currently the academy provides housing for 39 percent of onsite full-time undergraduate and graduate students by july 1st, 2019, the academy that house at least 45 percent of its onsite students and by july one 2020, 22 the academy will house at least 50 percent no more than half the additional housing may be located and converted tourist hotels except for the first benchmark starting on july 1st, 2015, and every year after the academy will submit to the planning department an annual report on campus housing occupancy rates

and part of term sheets of both the department and the academy agreed on a formula will allow the academy to defer the benchmark increase under certain sequences if they're met so the next category is a project approval the commission is aware many of the items were continued earlier today to july as part of the development agreement the academy will withdraw a number of the applications and the academy will transition some of the existing used to alternative locations and the

spirit the development agreement the academy will agree to bring the school urban campus into compliance with the planning code including the reconfiguration of the sites. >> and it's anticipated that through the development agreement both the commission and the board of supervisors will be exercising your discretion to approve sites or properties that need discretionary approval in terms of future expansion this is also part of agreement the academy will first update it's imp no more than no later

on may 21st, 2015 as part of the da the academy will apply to all laws and have all required permits to use my in the city and alleges all structures not opted out as housing or the last legal use was residential and the academy will notify the planning department at least thirty days before it submits an application for construction, demolition or change of use the next category is payments as i said earlier $7 million paid into the small site program

and the academy paying all of the development fees and fair share fees, all costs of enforcement, penalties and any additional fees of related to the development agreement or permit and then the last category is the enforcement so typically development agreement last week, a contract and there are enforced as if they were a contract through the negotiations did parties have agreed that there will be a settlement agreement a stipulated injunction and a content that will cover the

obligation so forth in the broad agreement those are the categories i know the commission and public were provided with the term sheet and exhibit that are made available that have more of a daily i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. i'm sure we'll have some take public comment first, i have a couple of speaker cards (calling names). >> good afternoon, commissioners and staff i'm keep the comments brief i'm handing in a two package critique of the settlement i think the key points are there the amendment as again whole fails on many levels to address some of the bigger issues we and others are bringing forth i start with the

highly i think inflated claims by are written a bulk of the settlement on the value of what we're getting in the street development that is highly inflated value for land shortly after buying the property and claiming they're claiming that is higher they're paying taxes on and 50 percent of area medium income that means they can charger over one thousand dollars a month for seniors if you look at the city owned with the area medium income that's what you can charge not permanently affordable housing of the kind and means substantial tax flow the second ting that didn't address the fact that of the 6 hundred and 6 beds if former apartment and the sros will continue to be operated by aau

with fall knowledge of this development and the city attorneys illegally, illegally they're not asking for convert them to legal stouffer's they'll be operating illegally and depending on people this is a sham we have evidence when meaningful sincere developers had to remove affordable housing as part of the schemes the mayor's office of housing new york city we've been for the record informed between 75 to $225,000 a unit as a replacement fee do you use that figure times the 6 hundred beds they've permanently removed that is silent on that will be between 40 and $70 million worth

of a settlement fee they should be paying for the of hundred and of i think those are very important points the city attorney needs to brief the board open what is not in the settlement and the city has to bp that about that entity and not deal with things covered by the loophole. >> thank you, mr. wormer. >> good afternoon again paul wormer i have some documents to submit a two pages the let me first, by saying with respect to the settlement easement i'm concerned about the amendment relative to the shuttle certify there small business concrete requirement i

prop that the shuttle not be allotted for any facility that is served by public transit leaving san francisco mta's guidelines if you look at stop distances that means about nine hundred feet as a distance to the nearest stop if if so that close shouldn't be having shuttle stiffer 19 services those shuttle are a nuisance what is not clear in the analysis and i've seen what is aaus cost to san francisco what is the settlement actually worst to san francisco and what is the settlement costing aau is that a disincentive for violations

just focusing on residential properties aau has removed a large number of square feet of residential property what that square footage what it that impact on displacement of seniors, displacement of property that will be rent-controlled properties and so on those are outlined in the sheet i don't want to get into them those are the questions you should be asking staff to address in detail so see if that settlement is good can i have the overhead, please? a quick simple assessment if you look at the development costs for - affordable units senior housing nonprofits you're looking an afternoon average of nine hundred some are very, very low - if you look at student

housing costs your assuming 200 and 80 square feet per bed students $16 million would cost to build that property the full 17 hundred beds and average cost over $2.8 billion that is a rounding error less than the contingency in the construction project is that a good deal for the city of san francisco is this deal really calling a vital our of san francisco's codes to get or is this a gift to a millionaire who's profits trump the housing industry.

>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm chris martin the term sheet in the proposed development refers to the aau campus but the aau didn't have a campus it is properties are scared throughout many of san francisco's neighborhoods you know in a crow flew around the perimeter of the aau property they'll fly a distance in excess of $8 million one of the shortcomings the aau students express on line the difficulty of getting from class to class on time because the distances between the aau buildings diesel shuttle buses are not the

- developed design guidelines to influence the ongoing development of their dna's or campuses at the strive to have a complained core of lib and housing and facilities for recreation due to the limited time period between classes short term distances between academic buildings are paramount without exception the guiding principle of those universities to maintain the pedestrian oriented campuses this is the opportunity for the city to establish a walkable campus for the aau it is time for the city to undertake basic planning measures and require the eliminations of non-conforming

aau properties that stretch too far reaches it is time to protect the neighborhoods and other institutions from incomparable encroachment and loss of housing stock and unnecessary traffic snarls the aau has many properties in lower nob hill and the areas the city must establish a defined areas with geography areas in constraining the aau if owning properties outside of the satellite areas part of deal must require the ace to divest itself of properties outside of the campus properties including state and local and taylor and montgomery, las vegas worth and lombard and 1916 octavia requiring of concentrate campus

that can be served by muni eliminating the use of shuttle buses and providing as you and staff with subsidized muni passes must be part of settlement agreement thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> september 11th appreciated had a medical emergency she was going to talk about student housing the importance to build student housing and this is not a settlement that deals with that in is an honest manner the city should be dealing with you have a real crisis in housing

other institutions that are nonprofit institutions are building housing the for profit for profit for profit the academy of art the money accrued to the stevenson family you have to realize not building housing and their sluvenlg the housing what i got in my handout of buildings they're using for housing and when they acquire them and the legal status how many beds their sub dividing apartments and sending students to rent a bed that's not rent control the planning department can be having blinder on and say oh, we're not responsible for violations of the rent ordinance this is a citywide settlement you have to be following the law

in san francisco and the law is chapter four 1 on residential hotels and rent-controlled unit housing the second law your flagrantly violating i've given you the language you're not taking that seriously if you were doing an imp at the proper time you'll be doing that 26 years ago and the feedback from the planning commission if you can't mraurnd the housing stock that is what this all the time sets up they've had the responsibility to file an imp since 1991 that's 26 years ago today, there students have increased from what they had in 1991 they have 12 hundred students foe they have about 8 thousand

and we are putting blinder on to that realty you got to have a hearing there gets both housing and student housing the planning commission has not had the hearing that the board of supervisors had a year ago how this is what chris was going to submit a list of what they provided to the board of supervisors on other institutions that are constructing housing to do the right thing by the students and by the institutions you need to have a housing really a hearing on student housing across the board thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay. commissioner comments? >> one question came up on the

value of the pine street property. >> yeah. >> in the summary did you put that was valued by the academy can you explain i think the consideration how many unit not necessarily the value. >> yeah. the academy did part of language that the academy wanted in the agreement that's why that is written in that way but from the mayor's office of housing inanimately coming up with a resolution the 2 pine street properties what the proposal is consistent with programs that the mayor's office of housing and community development manage

and i believe the number that olsen places on the the city were to construct be one and 60 plus or minus that would be in the range of $40 million that's the number we got from the mayor's office of housing and community development. >> okay. >> and then the $20 million settlement is that - are you laying out where those go to the small acquisition funds are those guaranteed to go to that or subject to appropriation or late out in the settlement agreement is that where those funds will go. >> i don't believe that will be in the development agreement

but the other documents i think our discretion how we allocate that so money going into the small site program and the money for which is why everything is proximate a pot we adding on and adding certain things come out of that pot so the development come out we agree how the city has the fund. >> on 55 pine a practical question an older building between taylor on the south side of the street and when this building is being adopted to 100

percent housing for a timeframe of one and 6 of years how much lifespan has this been take into consideration it is already an older building probably 30s or earlier i'm not sure the date of construction but this is something that is called the useful life of a building is that entered into the equation. >> staff at the mayor's office of housing did some investigations we did request documents from the academy about the building and there was some evacuation to be used for the purposes intended in the term sheet that was aars doll amount placed on

those upgrades so that was - considered and then i'm looking exhibit b to the term sheet i don't know if you have all of them a draft of ground lease between the property owner and the nonprofit that is going to run that and they're required to produce annual operating budget and also required to maintain the property in good condition and repair and consist with the physical needs and assessments before the operators acceptance of the property and every 5

years after so there is an obligation to maintain the. >> it is a little bit more than maintenance i'm asking about the lifespan of a building if the building is old and i add 6 of years it will be experiencing i don't know i'm trying to see that sometimes buildings sometimes they don't work anywhere the code changes and the aging of the material and the inability to adjust to phenomena we're not sure of climatic change and what way has that been take into consideration related to what the obligation is for 66 years. >> commissioner, i think those are good issues to raise in the final development with with the

reminder this is a term sheet a board all that will be a development one of the things we can put in the final document that number's of units has to exist for that 55 year whether ♪ building or another building >> i appreciate that the first one is more on the quality and obligation. >> sorry. >> ♪ case a historic building we summary that is over one hundred old so we want to maintain as a building whether or not those units are there is a different question i appreciate that a couple of other things tom mentions olsen lee was part of the the ami levels that are proposed from the term sheet were a request of the mayor's office of housing because their typical of the tare current bmr that are typically percent of ami or lower i think that that was not established by the aau

but the city and their request how this building should be best used in fact the tour of that building suggested this be used for seniors because of the lay out and the layout of unit that was olsen's belief that would be best used for seniors because of the way the building was laid out maybe and just to be clear about the other units that the one hundred are the number of unit out the rent control the other unit the academy as created is a out off the hotel the number 6 hundred was thrown out that's the number of beds not 6 hundred unit taken out bus the beds the academy has i don't know how many a couple of hundred just to be clear about want to make sure

everyone is on the same page we agree the academy has inappropriately - the one and 4 units are the rent-controlled units and the other scott will know better than i >> the mayor calls one and 60 units were converted without a permit and one and 44 dwelling units the academy is occupying as student housing at the time that was convert not a violation of the planning code but trying to get through the agreement this is not the position but to be clear not what that agreement does an impact because no longer available to the general public comment because of the academies use and so we're trying to capture that that's where the

$7 million button fund to recapture some of that harm. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you so much inform tom and christine and being familiar with your work over many years i have no doubt you'll get this done as soon as possible in those settlements and negotiations so i also know that olsen is a developer and somebody that looks at risk so you know, i know that it is not part of me want to say punish these guys, i know you guys have been in the

negotiations i want to do say thank you it's been a long road i did have one question to the comments from the public and i'm wondering from the production of a master plan is part of a this settlement agreement did i miss it. >> i might not have been clear there is a commitment to before the da is approved no matter is that july 1st? i thought that was may 1st >> it is either - huh? >> may first of 2015 they're committed to updating their imp i mean, i'll note the commission accepted an imp it has think

virtually submitted in 2006 and they didn't find that was adequate over several years found something that could be expected in 2011 they've been upting the imp and as tom noted part of this they continue to comply with the law. >> one more when you said that in the future they're commenting to eventually housing 50 percent of the students if 50 percent of their students 10; right? not now. >> correct all there is formulas and that's one of the reasons that is important that it was requested by the city and agreed to by the the academy to submit a report on the occupancy rate so when it is time for the

department to make a decision the department will have not only the current date by but the historical data. >> commissioner moore. >> i think a thank you. is appropriate it's been a had your clinic effort it stanherculine years by now and the continued performance and environmental review, the con forbearance to

law that might change hopefully make that a better transition into performance. >> thank you. i echo that it's been a long time commissioner moore has been on the commission for most of years hearing the reports and the city attorney is great to get us to this point we appreciate your work and what's come out of that director rahaim do you have - >> one of the things we want the commission to think about we have place holders one once a month and potentially having the hearing one of the questions i'll ask you to think about is there whether there was specific topics you want a specific hearing whether that is housing or transportation and specific information that you want as a

reminder you and the board have full control over the board the intent has been that is much more detailed version of the term sheet the conditions raised if there are specific hearing topics you want to have please let us know. >> commissioner moore. >> could i ask for one right away how you'll move away from the portfolio to a substantive master plan we require within the last year proclamation by other commissioners that were sitting here for example, the art institute that $0.83 sets a standard for basic performances, etc. >> i think that was timely

they have a deadline for a imp it would be timely what will or not be part of the master i'm happy to fourth that. >> i think that housing and from the imp having a broader discussion imp. >> as we said before the imp legislation itself is not frankly very helpful to us in the discussion with larger institutions because of the limits on when was required. >> i'd like to echo i did hear the imp on housing and transportation but from the commission - those tops how we face them will guide the negotiations and so we - we can

take those 3 to start with those that understanding what i - what we heard the priorities but if other ones the commission want to us to present on and public input i'll be happy to that. >> the only 09 one is possibly more how they grow from the future how they build the housing and what their quote/unquote campuses is supposed to look like in the future and where they continued to build that may fall under the imp as well. >> all right. the commission will take a break for >> good afternoon welcome to

the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for commission regular hearing for thursday, february 2, 2017, like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. commissioner item 15 ab were continued to may 11th this is case 16 union street a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. members of the mr. haney commission sharon the item before you is a conditional use authorization as sweaty bet i didn't open spaces in woman's activewear in a ground floor vacant space with one thousand plus square feet of floor area are previously occupied by a formula retail use with the retail controls within the union street

commercial district will have greater tenant space no expansion to the envelope sweaty betty has floors with no stand loan locations the proposed project allows for the weigh the i didn't betty independent location store in san francisco they currently have other u.s. stores 23 connecticut new york and other stores in london and part of u united kingdom they're in the draft motion the department has no opposition to the promoted project the project sponsor submitted one letter of port of the projects of the union street association, petition with 10 signatures within a block the project site and indicated they

conducted efforts one the cow hollow marina area that concludes my presentation. >> my sweethearts name in high school was sweaty betty (laughter). >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is period of time i'm the director of store development for sweaty betty give you a little bit of background on the company sweaty betty founded no 1998 in london her vision to give the women the ability to feel fashioned since 1998 it evolves and with very 8 bans location the union street will be the first retail

location in the bay area sweaty betty is unique focuses on part of solution that brings fitness to give the women the best fashion with the ability to be one or more on the slopes and work out and about we take pride in helping people feeling excited to look their best we want the customers to feel good in the process the union street is an absolutely beautiful area the owners the company feel in love with the charm of building we adore and want to preserve sweating i didn't betty in the communities are sponsoring events and create exciting

atmosphere we're very big on sustainability and we do hope to partner in the area and have the project approved thank you. >> thank you so open this up to public comment is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. open up to commissioners comments commissioner moore. >> in the past the merchants were supporting or not supporting in more cases supporting union street has a small turnover on smaller stores i think we'll be helping the situations by a supporting the project and i'm move to approve second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to then to approve with conditions commissioner johnson

excuse me. commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards commissioner president hillis sorry. >> richardson. >> sorry president betty (laughter) thank you, commissioner commissioners, that item passes unanimously 4 to zero. >> congratulations commissioners under our discretionary review for - i will consider the discretionary review and the zoning administrator will consider a variance on pacific avenue. >> good afternoon. i'm david lindsey of adachi department staff is a horizontal condition of the 3 story single-family on pacific avenue the proposed addition within the footprint of the building but does require a variance from the

planning code rear yard they existing building already extends to the properties rear yard the zoning administrator will consider the variance request with the discretionary review request the the subject property on the northwest area in the pacific heights the designs house on a down sloping 60 foot by one and 28 foot lot rh-1 and a historic resource for the purpose of ceqa in the block faces are 3 and 4 single-family homes in varying argumental strives the house west the the subject property a single-family home the department has received no public comment other than from the $2 the dr requesters are

andrew and stefani owners of pacific avenue, immediately adjacent to the west of the the subject property and david owners and resident of 2421 peer street cross from the the subject property the golfs concern is as follows it too at all and two deep effects the light and air negatively effecting neighborhood character mr. lobe and phrasing concerns are as follows: the project should have been subject to a historical resource evaluation and is inconsistent with the preservation finishes and exterior materials and the 311 notifications was inaccurate the lots grandchildren 20 percent

slop not take into account into the review and no basis for granting a rear yard variance to allow the project to proceed following the submittal of the dr request the residential design guidelines reviewed the project and conducted that is consistent with the residential design guidelines and not contain any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the rdt found the proposed addition is a setback into the building facade at front on the public right of ways and not distract from the the block additionally rdt informed finally, higher than the roof and within the footprint of the building the project was reviewed by the planning department and historic preservation commission and found it is consistent that the

secretary of interior standard the project was exempt from the environmental review recommends not take dr. >> thank you mr. lindsey dr requester 5 minutes. >> before you start my clock i have a couple of handouts. >> leave them there i'll pass them out. >> i've not been to planning i don't envy you every time he come to city hall i'm grateful. >> to make the best use of your time i circulated 5 basis to reject this one is sufficient but all 5 have merits a little bit about this house a category

a historical resource and pristine home completed and the gentleman is a master architect 6 years ago today with the commissioner fong and commissioner moore on the board you guys approved modern guidelines for evaluating the resource he was mentioned one and 77 time in this report and specifically this house pacific is highlighted at the not able property with 6 residents were designed by the gentleman 6 years later we're here debating the front and side of 26 hundred pacific or indeed any written analysis to make that historically significant 80 years now this proposal is a modern addition creating an odd

mishmash on a street where homes only have one style before i go into this i want to round through a few undisputed facts this is a 8 house plus square feet home with 4 bedrooms and playroom and gym and has 3 thousand plus square feet throughout 4 floors about three years ago the owners had a button to top renovations adding square footage and dealing with the non-conforming issues now they want to rehabilitate their home and bring the footage to 12 plus we note even though the rehabilitation is adding a bedroom the actual space as submitted to say have been labeled as an existing office

rooms would have been concerted this same office to bedroom will be accomplished with no exterior alterations and exhibit ab from the goal of rehabilitation can be accomplished without the need of an addition the addition shouldn't be permitted let me talk about check points three and four first, the impact on the volume of building visibility from the front facade and he impact on the historic roof were not considered from both the south and east walks that addition towers a lot of the roof line as you can see with a picture that i passed out of a picture i was given by the project sponsors yesterday the third floor will be a focal

point i note here both planning and the project sponsor it out the benefit of the modern features because that will not be confused with the historic home that's only one half of the 10 factors that needs to be considered and 3 other factors i've folded in exhibit b were go forward one key issue of the proposal open public notification of notifications sposhz called this a rear addition that is not i .3 graphics into the front exhibits c and d from the sponsors submission if you call this a rear the front door is in the rear it is on think ideal a plain why try to claim a side addition is actually a rear addition not an additional or

altercation of the facade facade omi as you may know is an appropriate anything else my ear is a feature of any face the same way the portion of house including the front door is on the face of facade even though that maybe a few feet setback from the portion of the house one last comment please let me read it when i talked to the planning commission i asked about the roof she said had no list of historical features that is exactly the problem. >> sir, your time is up. >> you will have a 2 minute rebuttal you'll have a chance to fetish that statement and add to it at this time we'll take public comment from speakers in favor of the discretionary review.

>> seeing none, then open up to the project sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> my name is louis butler i'm the architect for 2600 pacific avenue i don't know if it was clear in mr. lindseys presentation but two requests was was removed today, the planner on that so i have the material on that this is the settlement agreement that was agreed to this morning with the neighbor to the west you'll see that was signed by all parties that's done we're done to one request for discretionary review.

>> thank you for your clarification. >> i'll start with some of the site photos to get people familiar if those can be put on the screen thank you pursue those top photo the photo of the house down on peer street we're adding up there this is the intersection photograph i'll show you the photograph straight on from pacific avenue right here in impact from that area a little bit more interesting this forgave bottom middle in the for ground the area we're adding the room this is the number one part of this house this was added to in if area a penthouse and attic and h v c equipment and par that his not attractive this the

background. >> if you can point to them we can see them. >> this is the dr that was removed they're adding to the back of their house a separate permit those projects are in tandem that is the area we're working in on the house this is the area that is clearly not the materially agree with the comments we've worked on a lot of houses this is a vest contagious of a remodel not part of oriental how's that was one of the reasons we're in the area the neighbor in the background we've should had a friendly relationship we had to go back and forth they're a supporter and excited about seeing this area of house cleaned up the next photograph is just what we've seen already this is another photograph i'll come back to later in the

presentation this is the residence of the remaining dr requester f either if i have time now i'll show you a before and after this is the area as not attractive and perhaps to the left this is the house of the person that withdrew their dr we're lockstep we're proposing mo' magic they're happy with this is the floor plan of the project and it shows the proposed this is attachment a to the agreement with the neighbors what we've done a rounded to corner not in their view that was a privacy issue not a view issue i also want to go backwards and say our oriental proposal didn't require a evaporates it was actually staff's recommendation for us to slide that back they felt that sliding it back and

occurring the variance because the house was in the rear yard if this is a flip-flop house it sits on the top and this is they made a courtyard and it is hard to work on this house in that area without in the variance that came from staff and we work closely with them to come up with a good solution in that area this lot display slope the retaining wall of the bottom of lot is on the neighbors property we end this with a less than 20 feet slope the floor plan for an office any client has twins it's unclear how they'll house them i think what i'll do is i'll safe the next part of presentation for the rebuttal

i do want to emphasize emphasis this is a small has no legal staircase it has a cutup floor plan we're trooib trying to clean up part of house we didn't have the first time. >> thank you any public comment testimony in support of project sloepz to the dr. >> dr requester a two minute rebuttal. >> totally avoids the issue so say that's on a portion not 0 done by the folks we're complaining about the roof line this is a historic characteristic i asked the preservation planner if it was a. >> sir speak into mike. >> she has no list of historical features that's exactly the problem how can one

do an accurate characteristic of 2600 pacific avenue their maintained unless one first create a list of historical characteristics there are 3 defining go characteristics of a home that would be impacted he built houses by raising the roof in the plan of front door this proposal makes that more massive he built homes shaped to the lot with 3 heights to follow the con it is your of a sloping lot this provision ignores that just maybe a historical preservation happens what we think that might mean in san francisco it means you don't get to add a modern glass object one of the homes in san francisco that is visible from pacific and we submitted

pictures showing with their polling that is visible this is a steep street and the pictures if thirty feet up pierce walking down into from the plaza park should it is visible maybe not appropriate to have a meeting in january 2016 i promised to work with us and wait until two days before the discretionary review hearing to meet with us or should us in any options we never got to see any options and maybe you don't get to change the how's that has as an house that is visible from the street that the william intentionally wanted. >> thank you project sponsor two minute rebuttal our our

screens are recently gone black some sort of a fwlifrn in the system and the alarm didn't go off and the timer paused i'll go old school and use my handy phone here. >> for your timer and in 30 seconds. >> oh, so i look to you for the time. >> i'll try to run it and see how it works but the chime didn't go off. >> my screen is working jonas. >> it is yours is not. >> you have two minutes. >> does the overhead work sfgovtv can you go to the overhead sfgovtv? >> there we go. >> that was the problem

previously i think they're having technical problems upstairs. >> so no you're going to have to do without the overhead i think. >> yeah. >> oh, turn the power on that was what happened it is on the back. >> (laughter). sorry it's on the back >> do we hit a button oh, there we go. >> i'm sorry your two minutes are up (laughter) this photograph shows story poles we constructed for the neighborhood to see the addition as you can see we're to the left of the peek we're between the

victorian much larger than our houses we're improving the areas by taking out the chimneys and capping it that slektsd the materials and the skylight comes if planning about a subtle differential with the how's that is to the right this is differentiating in a respectful way in an area not in an original area those are the - joe wrinkling to any right went to the dr applicants house we took this i'll show this one that is more effective here's the original proposal that we showed planning and then here's the proposal where they asked us to add a skylight they want to

differentiation of the skylight that which i am is far north side of the how did so the skylight i think will let some of the bay in i want to go back to this graphic so we are doing a rooftop addition in pacific height. >> 30 seconds. >> if you look at the landscape of pacific heights there are two rooms that are effected and that's where you saw this from the room on the right this room right here and this room which is a landing on the top of the stairs the dr requesters house not effected and the room above not effected given the magnitude of the neighborhood maybe i think we've done a pretty good job of minimizing the addition. >> thank you. >> the public portion of the hearing is closed open up for

commissioner comments can small business press the bottom my screen is dark. >> oh, his is on mine is off oh, now, it's on. >> if you press that co-sponsor it might turn on. >> hit the screen. >> okay commissioner johnson. >> i was testing that. >> commissioner koppel do you want to comment or are you testing. >> anybody want to comment. >> i can start i certainly think that is a great building as you note an important building a historic building but our kind of analysis on whether to take discretionary review is based on whether this is extraordinary circumstances you talk about the historical part it is extraordinary but i have to look to the analysis the

department did in the historic preservation commission professionals in the department not take 9 architects or the project sponsors word but the have looked at this and analyzed this along with our residential design team and determined that meets the secretary of interior standard they don't say you can't add on but in a way that meets their standards this does he building you know the project works it respect the integrity of the building and i'll be fine not taking dr. >> is that a motion. >> i make a motion to approve thank you, commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to not take dr commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to

zero and either commissioners, that places you under your that places us on. >> i think on the variance, close the public hearing and noting the existing historic resources and code compliant alteration has a negative impact on the resource. >> commissioners on item 18 at 3239 steiner street a discretionary review. >> dr requester. >> oh, many staff first. >> you're right. >> unfortunately my screen is partially black so turn the control lights.

>> good afternoon. mr. lindsey department staff this project is facade changes in the enclosure of an open stairway to the roof to chooment a four story two unit residential building an application to add the fourth story and roof deck was approved by the planting a year and a half ago no discretionary review were requested the earlier project maintained the facade, however, the applicant applied for an evaluation that determined the structure is non-not a historic resource and the folks modified the facade the project the original project is currently under construction under the 2014 permit

the the subject property is on the west side of steiner street between lombard and greenwich in the marina the zoning a rh-2 the building on the subject block are 3 stories in height and oppose two to four stories the house immediately north the the subject property is a 2 story unit building as the house to immediately to the south the department has received no public comment on the project other than from the dr requester the doctor is mark who owns the building immediately southth the subject property the property is not consistent with the residential design guidelines specifically the project windows and exterior materials are not consistent with those in the neighborhood

the residential design team reviewed the proposal prior to the notification and indicated its support avenue contemporary expression with some increase and reduction in glazing to address the neighborhood context the pardon revised the project and what is before you reflected it as revised to respond to the rdt direction following this the rdt reviewed the project in light of the request it is consistent with the residential design guidelines and didn't contain in any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances specifically the rdt found that the the subject property is located in a neighborhood with mixed character a neighborhood that is adjacent to the lombard street commercial strip the department recommends that the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. >> thank you mr. lindsey

dr requester you have 5 minutes. >> game-changer commissioner president hillis and commissioners my name is mark my wife and i kate mentioned we live next door we recently purchased the building we've mind there 10 years we have an interest in the architectural character of the neighborhood we are asking for a discretionary review we don't believe the characteristics is characteristic of the residential design guidelines and the characters section four building formats and section 5 the architectural features and section 6 abdomen a little bit of history in 2014 the plans were including the fourth floor while we were not xiefrtd about

the fourth floor blocking the light it fell within the 40 foot height limit we're excited that the front facade showed the original design you know the fourth story had floor to ceiling windows because of the sobriety it was fine the rear again, it was okay. but we were concerned about the facade remained architecturally consistent with the neighborhood that you what you guys provided the permit there was no indication of changing that whatsoever overhead projector please. here's the existing block where we have the characteristics within the neighborhood the scale and height the windows perform in height with each

other in the trend the trim is consistent throughout also the rooflines the corners are different they have the same type of scale with the proportions provide vertical when you look at the open and closed spaces in all the buildings and also the use of detailing can help to soften the volumes to create light and shadows when you look at their design the first thing jumped out is the windows their 60 percent higher this is a lot of additional glass and glazing you see on the roof line and wanted to add a little bit but nothing to the scale that exists they have per planning department staff added trim by put a shadow

box is created a design rather than the verticalness in the neighborhood on the ground floor the slate concrete and more industrial gate that flushes and takes away the articulation in the neighborhood i do want to acknowledge staff for what they went through i said the original alteration reduced the setback added an extra 5 floor and penthouse and the facade present to them was floor to ceiling with the articulation we appreciate the owners met with us and added some elements of the neighborhood into their design how have we were not able to get there and because of the starting point was this flat

floor to 150e8 the trim and slate paneling we think in order to create a design with the neighborhood characteristics it should be more in line what was approved by you and the neighbors i know there are many ways to reinterpret the character you have to want to do that it was an ultra modern no characteristics i appreciate the staff pushed back but you can ask for the sun the moon and stars but not guaranteed so thank you >> is there any public testimony. >> seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes.

>> are you starting the clock. >> my name is mike this is my wife amy and this is my daughter hannah and my younger daughter ashley per we purchased the building in february of 2014 with the intention of living in the upper unit and renting out the lower unit when was contradiction is completed our goal for the project was to add more bedrooms and bathrooms to both unit and make the upper unit functional for our family the recent facade changes to bring in more light to both units while being capable with the neighborhood buildings

i grew up in san francisco and went to middle school and high school in san francisco my daughters are currently going to lowell high school and my younger to chinese-american international school in hayes valley we have a vested interest in keeping our family happy living in this space that's our intention i'm here i'm a 14-year-old ninth grader and lowell high school this is the how's that i want to live in i hope to enjoy it soon this is my sister ashley hi. >> i'm ashley this is the how's that i want to live in we hope to enjoy living

in that soon. >> macro hennessy architect i want to put an image on the overhead projector the permit proposes a new elevation for the two units as mr. lindsey noted it is gone through 4 categorical exemption review not considered a historic resource by ceqa we went through the previous permit process and we decided to modify the front elevation to bring in more light with the existing smaller 8 windows were not adequate to bring in light of the living space of second floor and the two kids bedrooms

at the third floor the genesis for the redesign trying to maximize light into the space once we were working with the rdt as noted we received rounds of comments and raised the ceiling up 18 inches to provide more cement and increased the wiechth property line walls to create for massing under to minimize the windows in addition, we lightened the window frames and the adjacent panels as you can see during the neighborhood meeting 5 meetings with the neighborhood with mark and kate but adjacent neighborhood to doors down to the south as well those meetings we proposed to add a cornice we are happy to do that was a

strong point made by them to help to 250i got neighboring buildings and in addition adding to the window frames to create a shadow line to address the concern to relate to the trim that is found on all the buildings unfortunately as mark noted got to a point it become clear we were not going to get to a compromise they wanted us to essentially go back to the original elevation and given we're trying to increase the size of windows couldn't find a proper design solution to the problem thank you and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> any public testimony in support of project and opposed to the dr seeing none, dr

requester a two minute rebuttal. >> okay quickly we're not opposed we hopefully, will only opposed to the design we're generational san franciscans community-based to the overhead when we talk about the window size our windows are more than adequate it is the size that's not smaller but it is plain not enough light this is not an accurate statement as staff spoke about we're in a district there are other types of buildings in content that one is residential design guidelines quote in other words, to maintain the visible - the existing buildings are capable with the nearby buildings and the single building out of context is disruptive to the neighborhood and catholic and

repeated the images as a whole i think as you see they're in character yes across the street but another out of character is not achieving what is in the design guidelines that's will basically my rebuttal i'll not take much more of your time. >> thank you project sponsor two minutes. >> thank you i would like to make the point that i've been practicing architect in san francisco for the last 17 years so i've studied and gotten the residential design review process on a number of occasions and as the intent of the those guidelines is to relate to existing conditions i think this is a fair and proper way to design in san francisco

so i think as an architect we try to develop strategies to not be disruptive still provide clients with function and quality of space their deserving without doing something terribly disruptive the massing stays the same not addressing windows or something that disrupts the block phase the height of the windows even though their turn around the neighbors we tried to make a relationship even though it is different we feel strongly compatible with the neighbors so that portion of the hearing is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> it's kind of interesting the dr requester showed an elevation going which doesn't

quite match the expression of the building that i have here in my page the facade has more depth to it than the front thought it depict including the change of the materials on the facade creates different proportions into to that as all glass makes the thing a contemporary addition something i don't have any objections to the question we want to ask mr. lindsey is only one in this type of construction what are the window materials we're using on the front facing facade i see aluminum windows is that typical i believe that from my preference i want to see strongly as expressed heavier window frame in order to tie it more into what was happening on

the adjoining building can you help me out. >> yes. commissioner moore it is david listency staff the proposed windows are painted aluminum in this the residential design guidelines thought appropriate certainly in the commission wished to have some greater framing are depth or something we can work with them on that. >> i like to hear others to speak to that in principle i find the modern facade expression proportion al at to tie the building back to the building on the block i wouldn't mind so see a slightly more traditional