and commissioner moore. >> we do expect commissioner fong and commissioner melgar shortly and commissioner vice president richards will be absent commissioners, that places you under your is consideration of items proposed for continuance we have several bear with me case one at 2645 ocean avenue is proposed proposed for continuance to april and 3326 mission street to april 13, 2015, item 3 for the academy of art university adoption of ceqa finding is proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. items 4 ab ac adoption of

planning code changes by the planning department recommended to the academy is proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. item case 2016 - adoption of ms. hayward related to the academy of art university is proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. case 2012 academy of art university tech changes planning code tech changes also proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. items 5 abc d f and g for case - at 2209 van ness avenue and

octavia street and pine street, stuttering street and bush street relatively are all proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. item 6 townsend street is proposed to proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. items 7 for case - 466 townsend street also proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. further commissioners under our regular calendar we received a request for case folsom street a proposed for continuance may i

have no other items proposed for continuance and there are no speaker cards. >> thank you jonas any any public comment on the items proposed for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> move to continue all items summarized under items proposed for continuance further to that prop for items 15 ab as note this morning. >> thank you second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue matters at proposed commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero from the acting zoning administrator can continue 1-b to may 11th. >> i will to may 11th. >> thank you commissioners, that places you

under your commission matters item 8 consideration of draft minutes for january 19, 2017. >> thank you public health on the draft minutes seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i so moved. >> second. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt minutes for january 19, 2017, commissioner johnson sxhorp commissioner moore and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero item 9 commissioner questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm reading about being asked about the city's requiring sidewalks along van ness in a particular portion i've tried to google but can't find what that means and i'm curious.

>> commissioners that was an item we've been negotiated with the state for a long time the city has been maintaining the sidewalks along van ness it is a state road for many years and the city has been in negotiations with the state to take control of that part of right away that gives us more flexibility we we can do the state for example, we had a discussion the state will not allow projection for bay windows into the right-of-way so after a lot of discussion with the staff and state they will relinquish their right-of-way with the building to curve to allow us more flexibility how that space is used. >> i'm glad you're getting something for your money. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters drourment.

>> no new announcements. >> past event the board of appeals and the preservation commission and armed services that weeks lucrative was scald for the later than you think year but the sacramento commercial district by supervisor farrell passed the second reading and the various general plan and map places of entertainment for the sfoep passed their second reading i understand the mayor is doing a sign this friday and tthd ordinance passed tifrsz its first reading and the hearing for the 950 market street this item was the appeal was withdrawn as a party's came to agreement on the eastbound terms we have a transgender cultural district and so far no introductions have shown up

that's all. >> thank you mr. starr. >> no report from the board of appeals the historic preservation commission did meet this were no real items of electrician to the planning commission only note that they did hear a presentation regarding the budget and the work program i'll hear today and they received public comment on the pier 70 mixed use project i'll hear on february 9th there are no questions move on to general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. there is one speaker card. >> thank you very much georgia swedish and then if any additional general public

comment you you can please line up on the screen side of the room. ms. swedish. >> good afternoon like speeding through the agenda and was at the historic preservation commission yesterday there was a new co2 a they taken off the facade of one 51 liberty i don't care if you, you know about that it had a dr that was withdrawn when any neighbor had a dr in july of 2014 so i was interested in it i looked at the online this is why i was interested here's the plan favoritism can i have the overhead, please? that was with the packet when it was before withdrawn this is the lower unit it is a nice little unit living room and bedroom a nice fireplace the 1913 house, i believe not clear from the unit

was oriental before the project they were remodeling it putting in a garage they expanded the back and changed the lower unit and the thing that struck me as odd the media room the media room became the dominant room of the unit that was a programming when was back in the historic preservation commission it is an elevated unit here's the new plan and the media room which is the majority of the unit was closed off so i guess my point is it has to do with with programming, programming the unit it is important you talked about that last week with the family unit it is not necessarily determined by the number of bedrooms by the not determined by the number of

living room or family room allows floor space in a residential building it is important that gets memo to section 317 that looped i hope will get closed at some point from the unit is downsized they are flat two flat unit one over the other they have no control none has control over the smaller unit it hits the market or rented i think this loophole is incentive i's turning one into a mega unit with a smaller unit that is ultimately school board that is a fact of a merger we hope that's why you close the loophole that's my connection with the project. >> thank you, ms. swishing is there any additional public

comment? >> good afternoon. i'm paul wormer we want to take advantage to raise an issue i've raised before this was brought to mind by the recent discussion of mission and gentrification of the mission the argument well gentrification is not a result of the new construction but there is a problem in the gentrification has been going on for a long while and tailor clearly feedback loops unfortunately as i discussed when i talked about the article 7 revision a awhile back no good policy in the department for assessing what is going on in the neighborhoods. gathering dictated identifying trend and drawing connections and if this this is not happening decisions with made and aon a case by case basis what is happening in the city be that good or bad pa means the

department of city planning end up reacting than planning not good for the city i urge you to ask the planning department to look at how they can actually start assessing what is happening in the city in terms of trends of land use in residential areas, in neighborhoods commercial district >> how o those interactions play in february loops thank you thank you, mr. wormer. >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon jeremy paul when public policy in the planning code take one hundred 80 degree turn quickly it leaves a lot of question marks and remnant that need to be cleaned up and a cognizant distance in the community

i'm talking about legalization of dwelling units and the one hundred and 80 degrees that went from any new kitchen sink requires a parking space to the conditional use procurement for removal of a kitchen sink what that left us with a planning of setting policies hold officers from the time when things were designed specifically or written specifically to prevent people in adding dwelling units there is a document that is still relied on called the rooms down magic and the independence of what is a kitchen and a cooking area we believe are obsolete and creates questions among the planners and create a degree of difficulty for property owners mostly single-family or two family

pertains that really have no solution though 0 workout what to do with that second kitchen or quite often in the wealthier parts of town needs for a secondary kitchen for event catering or their own use or staff of households so i would ask the commissioners to consider directing the department to reassess the usefulness the down matrixes and the definition of what is a kitchen and do we want to prevent people from adding bar sinks where is that more liveable thank you for your attention. >> mr. dulavich. >> good morning tom executive director of livable city wanted to second everything that jeremy

said i imaginations or mentions that we're talking about making family-friendly housing and adding around the adu like no. you can't are a kitchen this kind of stuff maybe if we want to allow more flexible single units for types of household with children or undocumented family members multi adjudicatoral households you could look that if you read the down guidance it is aimed as preventing people from creating adu's maybe we think what are you trying to do with that the, etc. the requirements are there things we need to do or should do so i also wanted to follow up on something i noticed we have a family-friendly housing

presentation and it kind of showed the map of where families are move on in rincon hill is a good for example, 40 are percent of units are two bedroom for larger households but no families move in to those united something that going on another thing developers say oh, you have lots of parking spaces like families need cars and you know garages then children will come back and i need more parking for the children; right? we hear this as ever hearing family-friendly housing means parking and actually in conjunction with the tdm word i say look at the evidence we're building the downtown parking in the integrity and not bringing children back if you look at this graph of households with children in the decline of households with children in san francisco you see like it drops

in 1960 and 1950s we impose one parking space per unit so a lot of parking has increased over the same time with the households with children are decreased if cars bring children back we have a ton of evidence that didn't work and come up with smarter ways but don't let children continue to be the reason that we over park projects in transit rich areas of the city we're making housing more expensive by doing that and increasing cars from the tdm ordinance so but we're not making the unit family-friendly we'll need a different strategy to make them family-friendly thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment general public comment seeing none, we'll move to the regular calendar i believe we have a

request from supervisor peskin to call item 14 first i don't see their office. >> i don't see them in the audience. >> we said 12:30 my presentation will go after 12:30. >> so we want to call item 12 we're prepared let's casing call that and hopefully they're watching. >> it appears that the staff is waiting on that as well they were anticipating that - >> let's go ahead with mr. starr presentation 14 very good, commissioners. >> i'll sit down one more time. >> commissioners under our regular calendar for item 14 called outburst of order for case 2014 pca the reorganization and simplification of the project a planning code

amendment. >> good afternoon. aaron peskin the phase two of the reorganization planning focusing an article 7 i want it explain why the department started this so the planning code is a large and complicates document some of that complexity is necessary a dime city and with the san francisco's values and aspirations we're a city of neighborhoods and preserve the identity for the land use control we expect the planning code to be complex, however, a part a code over the years

without much thought for over will you explain control not often easy to find the controls and some controls get lost because of complexity that makes that difficult for planners but confusing for the public so i have i've a visual that hoping will illustrate i don't know if mr. moore i think this is the planning code from 1948 27 pages long 4 of the pages are techs for the planning code the other 23 have the land use map that is pretty short then go into the 70's and we have a planning code from 1979 the code is quite a bit long and complicated but 200 and 14 pages and then finally we have today's

planning code 3 volumes with 13 hundred pages it has grown in complexity in the recent years so prior to this project will was 4 different places in the code you could find independence to places in article 2 and one in article 7 and one in article 8 two ways to promulgate that the article 2 and zoning in article 7 and tables in article 8 after this process one set of definitions given the number of definitions from three hundred plus to one hundred a standardized way the information is organized in the code all will be done while maintaining the land use regulations in the zoning district or the necessary

complexity code so how did we get this way the code has the basic structure until 198 g prior to that the standards railroad in article 1 and standards and organizing tables that contain a definitions we have only a dozen zoning district and a few regulations the formulate worked, however, the code gained with the special use district to dry to bring order to the code the city added article 7 that created general and commercial district and special use district and added an article and a new way of oracle the code known and a as zoning district and article 7 came along which was similar but

different all the uaw while article 2 remained the same we have 3 sets of definitions and 3 because of defining that in 2013 this project was to restructure the code to read and understand. >> use this is a accomplished by the consistency through the standarding zoning district format to help achieve this is the divided into 3 phases march of 2015 and dealt with article 2, article 2 includes the residential and mixed use and pdr and downtown xerosis now the depictions have an syrup two twooekz have been needed but overall helping the planners do their job better that includes phase 2 and focuses an article 7 and phase three article 8 since

the definition have been consolidated into section one 022 reformulate to mick those in article 2 and use the consolidated definitions in section one 02 the definitions in section 790 will be deleted a significant number one number of begins are bans the definitions in section 790 one of the biggest changes to how uses will be regulated in article 7 the removal of what we called used grouping those groupings are found in section 790 they include other large institutions. >> small institutions on the retail sales and personal business or professional and other retail as part of existence of the xhoechgs e consolidation those have been split into there used

to preserve the land use controls the effects will not affect how the individual users uses are regulated in article 7 but allows for more fine-grain definitions and for the controls if zoning district throughout the city the ordinance eliminates section 316 that covers procedures for conditional use authorization and mcd district except one main defense they're the same in section 306 for cus and other entitlements one main difference the 20 days notification that is required in neighborhoods commercial and mixed use in other districts it is 10 days it make it 80 days and the ordinance deletes the food existence and notified as

described how the use is regulated by planning finally this use makes changes that have been requested by supervisor tang and zions e supervisor peskin for commissioner tang is amends the outer sunset to the conditional use authorization is required for bars and liquor store and personal uses on the second floor and republican states the outer sunset commercial district supervisor peskin has requested to the north beach ncd and f cd with the storefront prohibited assess on grant avenue and prohibits the large-scale kennels and 24 businesses and restates the - removal of movie theatres as the manufacturing is the definition to the north beach and require cu and

provides the sud for for the changes under the 2011 restaurant ordinance finally supervisor peskin also requested that the broadway mcd allows restaurants as of right and register perf with regard to public outreach i've hosted 3 invitations were sent to over one thousand recipients that is the legislative e-mail list and the organizations per for san francisco neighborhood hayes valley and quatro, represent 23 livable city and law firms and members of the public participated in the meeting he offered to go to neighborhood group meeting only the coalition took me up and offered to meet with people and as a result met with representatives if sacramento street and polk street and fillmore and neighborhood commercial district

and several meetings and folks with representative from north beach and conditioned to brief landowner and presented the proposal to the small business commission and the historic preservation commission i set up a project website the dates and times of the outreach meeting and published a draft report to weeks in advance on the projects website and notice of that out to the legislative and neighborhood e-mail so as a result this ordinance has been significantly amended to respond to the issues i've heard from the community those amendment what about found on page 12 and 13 of our executive summer i want to bring up planners to address the changes how that they've effected their

jobs. >> hi commissioners litigating director of current planning i'd like to touch on two main areas the reorganization will have practical improvement for the planning department staff as you may know we've done a tremendous amount of hiring for the planning with in any staff comes technical training how to read the code is a challenge to the size and complexity what makes it for complicated there are different land use definitions identify seen how easy it is for staff to learn article 2 than 5e678 - one of the current challenges of article 7 that was highlighted in a real world situation last week that note

all of the land use educators are listed and whether or not general office use was allowed the tackle doesn't call out office space there is a reference buried in the code from the land use is not listed it is inheriting not permitted pointing that out section is an inconsistency methodologies irrelevant to other codes it is taking staff more time to provide the public what should be quick combrorn answers i want to talk about the notification component as part of legislation we're loin the notification to be 20 days i'm a proponent to align and simplify the requirements it results in one less variable that is unnecessarily detailing it it will get up, up to speed quickly

and well-informed the public and fewer mistakes i recommend you pass this so we can recommend article 8. >> are we excluded the staff registration thank you supervisor peskin and welcome. >> thank you commissioner president hillis and commissioners aaron peskin member of the board of supervisors let me start by saying respectfully to the department i know a lot of work has gone into it frankly a solution searching for a problem the only justification i've heard that makes sense what she said what is that apparently the code is two complex for a rash of new planners this is a code that has evolved

neighborhood by neighborhood for very specific reasons i don't understand why there is this desire to have a one-size-fits-all solution it ain't broken didn't need to be fixed and the things your hearing from myself and supervisor tang has nothing to do with with the code reorganization those are fixes that we want and our constituents president in various places under various incremental or commercial districts that's the the neighborhood commercial district has evolved over thirty years let me say with all due respect to staff and to any body seven hundred and 50 pages there is no member of the public that has the ability to absorb all of that, yes a how much of people

that says article 7 quite frankly one time and again and again pointed out to staff unintended consequences which thank you staff has fixed in part including unintended consequences that would have wiped out the formula retail or valve curtail them not intentionally by staff nobody has read there the seven hundred and 50 pages if it ain't broken, don't fix it let's adjust what needs adjusting in policies and other mcds this is a project to me seems like a huge waste of time i have no idea why you're spending this amount of time and article 8 any constituents in chinatown are deeply invested in the way that article 8 has evolved so go down this thing excuse me - ivory tower is fine to redesign but my folks in

chinatown it works fine for them. >> thank you supervisor pes n peskin. >> we're doing rearranging on the presentation and we have a representative from supervisor tang's office. >> hi, thank you everyone good afternoon planning commissioners i'm arching a legislative aide to supervisor tang and give me want i'm under the weather i'm here to speak to the mcds as part of legislation and acknowledge the comments by supervisor peskin supervisor tang is not fundamentally opposed to this as well but the entire reason i'm here is just for the district four for the changes made we're correcting an error excuse me - that took

place during the last code clean up and the interim controls in district 4 for mcd and just to recap the bars and liquor store require a cu authorization on the first floor rather than principally submitted we have existing interim controls that require a few 30 years ago in the terryville and that will become permanent and personal services which were edited as separate of article 2 formerly now which encomes like pause and things like that that requires a conditional use authorization for the second floor on the terryville ncds thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner commissioner president hillis and members of the board ed with

dave i work with the calendaring we're the face of department this is where we make most of our meet san franciscans for the first time i applaud the movement of standard other things that disrupt the meeting are prohibited. the planning code and the main reason is our merchants are citizens when they approach us at the counter and we explain article 2 many, many times people want to walk away they get overwhelmed with the legislation so i look forward to anything that actually embraced our public especially the merchants and homeowners and engages them to be part of the progress so as part of information counter we look forward to especially for the zoning administrator making less and less due to the complexity of the planning code so thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner

president hillis and commissioners i'm litigating pearl planning department staff i deal with planning development and don't use the code on a daily basis however, like most planners in the department i work with the planning center twice a month and as edgar mentioned this is the publics main contact so we have to have the support there and there is as mentioned the code is complex to be daunting and explaining this to the public can be challenging i find the effort to be terrifically helpful it is easy to respond to questions from the public and allows me to help more consumers if you've been to the counter the waiting is long with the new formulate i know the answers are accurate so our customers can make the

appropriate decision i'm looking forward to have better service. >> thank you, commissioners so i've been a cart planner that on the team for at past 6 years and come talking about as a a planner that takes projects for the record as you may know in the quadrant we have a collection set of rules not only do we see things in article 2 and 7 and 8 one of the most frustration is the code sections the logic in how the uses are explained and the characteristics of each the use is different than the sections of planning code so having a consolidated set of definitions is extremely important making sure the definitions are consistent across the zoning district so that there is less of disparity in terms of how you define a bedroom in one part of

city as opposed to so - moving forward our service to the public another piece in the grouping of use categories how we chaplain specific uses simplifying that information within the code is important we already have established in article 2 as i said sets up a good standard and getting consistency and the last point is speed we want to be sure to communicate information to the public and provide the accurate information it is challenging to communicate effectively to the public when it is different in one area of the city versus another area inasmuch as we can get the consistency regardless of zoning district this is a logic that is established within the code and important that we stay true it the logic and keep

a consistent formulate after all thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. is that the end of staffs presentation mr. starr are you done? i'm done thank you for listening appreciate it >> opening up for public comment i have a couple of speaker cards but if you'd like to speak please line up on the screen side of the room. (calling names). >> go ahead tom you want to - >> also george go ahead mr. dulavich any order. >> good afternoon, supervisors tom dutch i'm one of the citizens that read all seven

hundred and 50 pages we've been working with the planning code urging you to clean up your code that 13 you know 13 hundred i don't know if so it 23 hundred i don't know it is xrlg cities are complex the code is complicated it is not just complex that is incredibly poor organized and self-referenceal there are huge gaps inquiry about art uses through a planning code amendment in 1988 i was like are they allowed in an mcd district kind of like the section if they're in the implicitly permitted than not permitted so when you create a zoning category in one zoning district or one set of zoning district often you, you know before that use was split out that was permitted but you don't permit

it no where that is a separate use there is been a lot of that so we've made uses illegal without intending to do that it is incredibly poorly organized tool this basic idea you put all the controls that apply in a particular zoning district on one table is the right way to go and just we're not losing a lot of complexity with this reorganization weer at the end of it have over one hundred individual uses will be regulated and each of the one and 11 districts and no one of that is lost we think this is actually been a pretty conservative redo maybe to a fault there is some aspects we put those in the letter like parking in mcd districts the art and nonprofit i mentioned and

the uses that previous code reorganizations have prohibited in ncd districts and - the way you handle the ncd district is there as a message in the code but still this project is really, really important we know where all the messes are we know where we at what is permitted and not permitted this reorganization makes that transparent whether or not i'm a citizen or planner at the counter everyone gets to know what is permitted and not permitted that's the basis of you to rethink what should or shouldn't and what should the controls be in the future we urge you to move forward we've been to all the public hearing and done everything you've asked them to do you feed to move forward but we're here and asking you it is better based on other - the

board will have their own things to say about it but hopefully, your work is done. >> overhead please and sfgovtv if you can go to the overhead please. can you set the clock please. thank you. >> good afternoon rose this is a copy of your agenda for today's meeting note the item filed for this meeting our packet references the pdf this is the item number and the january notice we've received we have a different filename that is not linked for this meeting

for phase two february 2nd meeting and so on january 20th the planning code sent out the notice with a link to the proposed article 7 which you are to vote i wonder in the legislation and in the meeting packet has the same of a different length and a different name a while ago i showed you this graph overhead please sfgovtv this shows sort of a comical graphic article 7 this is plus or minus things were taken out and the defendant factor to show what kind of differences in the ncd and we got a note before the planning code in article 7 allowed a particular use in the mcd now and a different use possibly but combine that with the things

coming out you have what one can guess how the changes work with the zoning administrator arbitration as far as splitting the groups and right now a finer grape use in the future no finer grains in the planning code today that will be taken out 316 and 306 is yes, the 20 day period have been linked i believe was 10 days you know if you actually put a lens to the changes it is not exactly the same been significant amendments and i don't know if there is any reason to think that staff training will come into play i'm an average bear reading the prado since 1999 and i've figured out things like this to be more mysterious but my main

concern what are we're going to get what does each commercial district get how does that change the planning commission meeting i was the only one there and second meeting to people and third meeting i didn't attend so i'm not sure that a real encompassing outreach kind of thing but again about policy procedure and having the public involved that's my main point. >> thank you, ms. olsen. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is george wooding president i believe the planning department staff has found a new way to make that impossible for public review

according to the planning department staff there was no substantive changes in the reorganization of article 7 indeed there are substantive changes in seven hundred page document as supervisor peskin was alluding to and that's been extremely difficult to redo the most recent changes since no red line versions made available various versions of - the actual article 7 is seven hundred pages they're asking normal people to go through seven hundred pages of code over one hundred definitions brought into this so it is a been a very difficult thing to review and when you start to review it changing 2i7b8 towards the end

from the question mark it means the review of the neighborhood was frustrateless in the first place we've been after this for months and all the time we find it was the appeal was wasted we me i'll say me i don't know what we getty doubt people that on the planning commission understand what is internally given to you right now i would say maybe 3 people planning department staff that actually are up to date on the changes that are being made are this is not a simple oh, we're unifying the mcd this being presented to you i think this is more this is

a way to get public input public review, planning commission review and planning department staff review none knows what our getting right now so i hope you'll think about that i'm certain you'll pass it but something that i think because it says when confusing neighbors are interested will be used in the future i hope we don't have to see seven hundred pages every time and then change 6 times so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker mr. weber please. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, my name is paul weber

i'd like to read a one and 50 word statement into the record and i'll augment it with comments if our letter. >> the commission should not support the seven hundred and 50 page reorganization project that's not wild read arrest considered by staff of ms. mcds but raise universal substantive issues after continuous denial staff has just quietly acknowledged significant substantive changes which it has not universally analyzed no time for martin luther king to react and understand if staffs repeated and erroneous public recommendations that changes were not substantive the complexity and lack of highlighting of changes that were made, the frequent publication of different versions and the completely

inadequate outreach sets the topaz for no reaction by those who should have an interest but were really uninformed ncds in two supervisorial districts have been subtilely assisted with the supervisors supervisor tang district and by informed locals in the case of supervisor peskins district and come up with substantive changes summary universal so, please approve separate legislation for each of these leave article 7 intact and gave me all others ncds as per liv by way of amplification you can see if you read for supervisor tang and supervisor peskin one-size-fits-all independent a

definition are changed the most important the staff took months with commissioner sanchez changes and the two people working on the supervisor peskin changes spent well over one and 50 hours engaged with themselves and staff i understand they're still not done so like i said go ahead and prop separate legislation for each of supervisor tang and supervisor peskin led let them go forward but don't pass article 7 until the rest of the supervisorial district is engaged. >> thank you. >> i'll call a couple of more names (calling names). >> hi, i'm teresa with the

veterans equality center i'm here actually we found out about that the reorganization of article 7 and as you may know our organization is actually participate in communities planning for soma for the heritage district and also there is undergoing a proposed release the draft eir of central soma plan so what comes to our community planning through the filipino we looking into the current nct codes it it dawned on us yesterday the reorganizations of article 7 and this is seven hundred pages long we've not discuses this with our community member as well so respectfully for the sunset or north beach amendment i

believe if the supervisorial districts have been working with the community and with the planning on this then we support those but in like when it comes to redefining article 7 and other area plans changes coming up in other districts i think creative members and other supervisors should be also involved with that so thank you. >> thank you, ms. imperial >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners joseph with south of market community action neglect in the richmond of the human rights committee we request that the planning commission not approve those changes to article 7 today article 7 revisions appear as previous speakers have noted shouldn't be just revisions pertaining to the sunset and north beach neighborhood but has been discussed with the over

seven hundred page document as the executive summary says and wholesale table of the definitions and replacement of them that causes great alarm as supervisor peskin noted earlier having the considerations for district 3 and 4 the separate be from the hotel revisions of article 7 make sense and i nodded i do a lot of work with the soma and richmond district we appreciate for sure that is a magnificent undertaking by staff with tons of detail in the huge document before you but in terms of the implications those revisions have to other neighborhood line the south of market and the neighborhoods on the district 4 - they cause

alarm there has not been community review of those changes i'll note a lot of people think there is no nct district south of market there are to current ones and as teresa imperial noted before me we going on a big effort for the same house, same call? latino cultural district and through the central soma rezone another three hundred page document we'll have a hard time with a document i would like to bring up an example that is presented for us especially in south of market the way the 5m detriment e development planning led the family special use district that changed the boundary of of our special use district in order to the planning to approve the

tower and the special use district so planning actions to favor the developers a over the community it is present as we precede with the planning south of market and other neighborhood so wanted to highlight the fact that as there are swhoil changes maybe substantive maybe not substantive or maybe said they are substantive and non-substantive as supervisor peskin said we have a huge task as citizens to digest all the information front of us and ascertain what whether or not it is substantive thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is harris harrison from the chinatown center i'll keep this short and sweet what we've been talking about which is essential this

one-size-fits-all approach is not really didn't make sense for our city we have a huge exist of different neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial all over the place and this is ill-advised also as well there is been as many have's said no chance to review those amendments and neighborhood commercial district are not able to you know process the information especially it is changed constantly. >> because the project guess what was represent as non-substantive as a community process was under gotten not adequate to really allow the community time to digest all the changes and understand what the

real impact of the changes will be for them in their homes and neighborhood with that in mind we respectfully request you not go forward with that ordinance thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> can you reset the clock please thank you. >> ill i eileen district 4 resident i'll urge the commission to continue this item i have also urged small businesses in district 4 and citywide to have staff do predicts in the corridor small businesses should not have to come to city hall or this room there are first of all, eliminating section 317 community notification also the backing fact that staff is

directing saying all requests for changes should be directed to the supervisor for that district rather than to staff that is a major departure in terms of district 4 specifically i have the following concerns changing n judah from - dividing terryville into district 4 versus district 7 and creating a sub restaurant subdivisions of terryville there are on 3 restaurant in that area i respectfully disagree with previous speakers leave the district 4 part and move forward don't believe that citywide understand the implementations are i ask you to continue the whole thing including the district 4 thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> take the opportunity to

comment on 4 jeremy paul i'm a permit consultant i want to support the comments that the two gentlemen made those are the front line people next year the planning department i'm sort of a front line person outside a lot of small business owners have enormous frustration small business owners they have a make enormous investments before they are certain their business plans can moved in the district they're in i have to ask as you look at the issues before you and whether or not to delay this who benefits? who benefits if continuing chaos continuing questions and who benefits from making things

simpler and easily digestible i ask the commissioners to take time so sit and watch take an hour and see how many small businesses with walk away in disbelief at the lack of clarity it is not because the lack of professionalism or skill of the gentleman and his colleagues those people are professionals and do their best to clarify the code it is incumbent about upon the city to make that easily for them to do their jobs and the citizens of this city to function thank you very much >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> mr. wormer. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul wormer i want to talk about discussions with aaron starr and

i support the intent of the revision it does clean up things that needed to be cleaned up i will say looking at the upper fillmore and the task force neighborhood i don't think there are any unintended changes you don't i can't say for sure and in part because of some existence and what have you i'm concerned that the one thing that does do is remove any requirement for review and revision or a review of what is happening in neighborhoods commercial districts following up on supervisor peskins comment about changing the restaurant abatement in the upper fillmore i see two property that were de facto formula retail both closed

well over two years ago one with the tenant not being are you in custody that was the talley's cafeteria on fillmore and jackson they're in ongoing construction after approval periods of well over a year when is that use actually abandon is a question i'll ask is there a strategy now that is being played out whereby and formula retail is getting produced approved and really not doing anything known is quite sure what to do but a conditional use it is locked in more valuable to the property owner there are questions what is happening and how those rules are played out and gained and how they affect the community not answered none it looking at

that and in fact, the review of how things are perform in an ncd is removed from the code with nothing to replace that that's a concern i the president the living that is very complex trying to figure out what is going on i spent much of any career looking at technical specification and review operating procedures the code is not that different this code is a lot more complex though than those things the clean up is a good thing know how to reconcile the concerns what actions what planning take to mitigate the causes thank you. >> thank you, mr. wormer. >> ms. hester. >> i sue hester i appreciate a

clean and restructuring but a revelation the planning department needs to realize there is a public aspect of the planning code i'm not here on tv rearly i believe people in their neighborhoods are more effective than using me there is numerous monuments put into the development of ncd from the public and various commission the original ncd were done by a woman the chief of planning for usf and lauren does a heroic job in setting up it originally there was in the past couple of months when this was going through the elections for supervisors in one, 3 which

aaron dealt with 5, 6 and 8 it is a supervisor elections they were doing enormous efforts and integrity 11 and district 89 so there was a hot and heavy campaign involving the supervisors that should have been been the vector a solution in their own district district 4 didn't center an election but got resources from the planning department and district 3 had a convey election but the district in his neighborhood dealt with the planning department you would do the same thing for every other district especially the ones that have multiple ncds do the right thing the acknowledgement you have a

public role and the planning department has a public role you're not a section of mayor's office and the appointing authority you have to step up the ncd article 7 is how the community raise questions historically when they were all for it there's a difference between the sunset and telegraph hill and the north beach, and pacific heights and you need to acknowledge them at the same time rewriting the code i appreciate aaron starr but there needs to be more. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners you'll forgive me i've written a few things down i'm here to represent spur and register or

rental the code reorganization we feel a monumental effort to simplify the code we previously supported the reorganization of article 2 in 2014 and now support the modification of article 7 adjusting it and encourage the department to modify article 3 in the same fashion we appreciate the efforts that evolving have all shift the charts to the tables and the standardization of requirements across the district we applaud the efforts of livable city and staff if an effort we urge to you move forward with phase three and perhaps add additional items to the scope of work thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> thank you is there any additional public comment on item number 14

seeing none, public comment is closed open up for commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much to staff supervisor peskin, representatives supervisor tang and all of the commenters that came out today and spent a lot of time engaging in the process we had to date i think that there is a lot to be said for all sides argument we heard and i appreciate the really substantive public comment we've gotten from everyone you, you know the planning code is like the goldberg of codes in san francisco like on the wooden i completely understand there are different dpngz for different neighborhoods where i agree with them or not they're there nor a

reason and that's completely understandable and not the purpose i think this initiative on the other hand, speaking both for the planning department staff i know has to work through this and people at the counter and people - members of the groups and the public and even myself as a commissioner it serves none to have a code that is so complicated that it is hard to follow logical and when you want to make any sort of change that makes sense for a particular neighborhood or the entire city it requires that the lowest effort which is not just you know someone you know sad it is time and money to figure out who will reverberates across a complicated planning code this is an effort while it is still

maybe i am perfect that is actually unified by the staff this is a necessary first step i don't think that's one of the initiative that is going to be successful if it is structured as something that hospital to be perfect at this time of the approval that is one of the things you have to start somewhere and then set up the system i think ms. hester brought this upset up the system for increased engagement in the future to make sure you have all the correction and simple indications and reorganization the way you want to without changing the spent land use proposals in the planning code but to say we're go back and make that perfect before we move forward i think that is going to be an exercise of futility and didn't serve anyone well understanding this is some things that continue some

looking at be i am appreciative of the initiative as it cumber standards we need to go forward and talk about the process to be in place people can say hey, i mini missed an unintended consequence without a major process every single time in no one's interest to have a planning code we can't ph.d in logic i appreciate everyone that spent a lot of time on it as far. >> commissioner moore. >> i support the intent but the comment about the public code strongly resonates with me - the presentation that aaron gave about thirty years plus which has created the complexity of that code and the nature and

the dpa dna of this city that expresses complex cities have complex code yet not over simplify i believe that particularly the example that different tables for the ncd have different definitions show by making that definition the same we are taking something which i believe has not been complained with more than two neighborhoods in two districts at the moment to create equal adjustment for the rewriting of article 7 we need to engagement all neighborhood and give them equal tools to do the same as supervisor tang and supervisor peskin district have been able to do they presented and worked with staff to create adjustment of compromises about the specification of the neighborhood i believe that all others districts and those which

have neighborhood and commercial districts deserves the same the support so for the intent at this moment i'm cause to see there's more work to do before we support it in its entirety we need to engage all supervisorial district to develop the tools that resemble those developed for district which represented future a little bit more political comment i believe that the diverse city requires detailed attention to sustain and foster diversities and by doing it quite the way it is presented today does not work for me. >> thank you commissioner melgar. >> thank you to everyone that came out and to staff i also support the intent

i think that we should have a code that is clearly understandable and logical i don't think that does us any favors with the public access to have something that is so complicated with that said i am not convinced this has been vetted i'm struck by the disparity of who has been - has weighed in to the unintended consequences of those changes iceland the outreach process that took place folks were notified this was in the works i understand it has been in the works for awhile and folks respond and many folks didn't to me not an adequate sort of showing it didn't have

untended consequences to me that is i think can have that should neighborhoods more capacity than others in some neighborhoods folks chime in and folks don't have the time or expertise to do things particularly those neighborhoods are dealing with issues of gentrification and displacement so i did work in economic development in the city for a few years and over the last few days i checked with a bunch of any former colleagues that work on small business development in the bay area and the excelsior and mission and folks actually didn't know there was going on i understand that you know at some point people should be responsible for like figuring out what is going on i'm not convinced and it may be that this really is not substantive and didn't have unintended consequences but now we have a

new supervisor in district 9 and district 11 and district 1 i would appreciate if there was more vetting you know those neighborhoods corridors particularly because that happens to be most of ones we've not specifically had being from the neighborhoods - you know those sections of town people of color live and poor neighborhoods and more distressed districts i'm not ready to support this today. >> thank you commissioner fong. >> thank you. i understand all of the variety of especially is from the neighborhood my background in small business owner supports the entrepreneurship of san francisco i'll currently that. >> with that it is the challenge of trying to keep san francisco the way it was and

modernize it and accommodate for new businesses nation wide this is a a challenge here in our city replacing some of the businesses in one year and hear the struggles the complexity of current code so i saw a sandwich shop it makes it - it is important to streamline i view that's as a reset bottom and agree with the commissioners not a perfect and hopefully, we have the patience to tweak it later specific neighborhood and the level of patience yeah. those are my comments i'm supportive but also supportive hopefully as a result of this unintended consequences that are fairly addressed for each neighborhood. >> i'd like to add one thanks to the staff and to the members

of the communities that participated i know that is complicated our code is complicated i think that all the folks say they don't understand the changes i don't think people understand the code this is not good for the public or the staff we see here every week in order to understand you have to hire a expediter or a lawyer that doesn't serve our low income community for those who want to get involved in the planning process not understandable this is a good step forward we see the unintended consequences of us making changes and not getting references or other changes that is effective down the line things are not in one place we've seen that time and time again we've made during the course because staff didn't

understand what is happening the code puts the benefit an attorneys frankly we see them here every week on small matters that's not right or correct will there be unintended consequences absolutely we'll have a clean of that but i think that is clear staff asks the members of the public don't intend to make substantive changes to the code except the ones on the two districts to simplify that is a great public service we're doing what ms. hester has often told us we need to do to make things understandable that is a huge step in doing that so i appreciate not work you often get award for to clean up the code and make that understandable i know we rely on the zoning administrator and a

come up couple even if key folks mr. dulavich of the code and overly rely on those folks that is so daunting i appreciate i'm fully supportive and as we vet this and get input we'll make the changes that is important to understand that people have had that neighbors and look off the market we look at the upper market and the ct and they'll be here as things changed from a substantive way in their district but hopefully make the future advocates and have a better understanding the code we're not trying to change that in san francisco with very much different neighborhood we want to respect that and not

make one-size-fits-all but have it all in the same first 50 pages of the code to i'm fully supportive i wish wisp taking more time to talk about the subjective changes in district 3 all over the place in the sum i think some of those are great and can use them potentially in other districts supervisor peskin has probably the north beach change anguish limitation on lot mergers will require a cu and storefront mergers will be prohibited those things that might have a might have - those are the things i wish we were talking about not the same old things with public outreach i'm fully poster of substantive changes and interested in how they get implemented and perhaps

implement them in other district but thank you staff and to those who been involved from the process director rahaim. >> on aaron starrs brave this is a existence no good deed goes urban punished i remember my counterpart in los angeles was embarking on a complete rewrite they budgeted $15 million we needed to do you believe that in money and time they're half way through and no where are near aaron starr has been involved one one half years not just during the election circle and important to remember us that the goal of making staffs job easier to serve the public is a

pretty damn important goal i guess the one thing that bothered me about the comments the notion that is not important i'll heartily disagree i think that is - i would suggest that we ask you to move forward with that recognizing the board will make further changes the board might not approve that i appreciate the commissioners comments on both sides this is an important piece of work that needs to happen. >> mr. starr there was are a couple of questions i don't know if you want to address did sensitive issues. >> paul wormer had great ideas how we can monitor the commercial district better it is so overwhelming so again, he was

responding to community concerns and listening to them with regards to things that have changed the principle was introduced commissioner bobby wilson of commissioner president hillis i know you had to go but commissioner vice president richards was there unfortunately unable to attend today but in the presentation and in the invitation it that presentation he said i'll go over the changes since the initiation i put the details changes i might add came from conversations and letters more letters from coalitions for san francisco neighbors and many, many phone calls and letters from the north beach neighbors and feedback i got in general from the commission i have reached out, i've solicited feedback and put them in the

ordinance with regards to the changes requested by supervisor cowen and supervisor tang those changes are independent of this reorganization they not because of the reorganization those are changes that the supervisor wanted to make to improve their district their changes that would be made now in the code they're not changes that are being as a result of this reorganization effort also every district doesn't have their own definition so this idea that i'm somehow taking that ability we're taking that ability away for them to provide for focus i guess land use controls is inaccurate there are one and 15 definitions which can

now be regulated separately and independently i think that unprecedented in the country i'm simplifying the code i'm simply making it coherent. >> it is important to note i'll encourage you to work with neighborhoods and neighborhood groups i know you've been responsive to us we've called and asked about questions you're responsive to any neighborhood that is wondering what the changes and how they back their ncd how to interpret this one. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i want to say i'm highly impacted by a responsive to commissioner melgars comments about the thinking equalities and who shows up and know the planning code in and out and which sections of the planning code requests the policies for other neighborhood i can tell you

looking at the bayview it is tough not a lot of advocates and to understand the planning code and understand how they can interpret the process so the policies how the neighborhood get shifted is in the planning code doing the simplification i understand it maybe put out a call and say hey, we'll be reorganization for article 7 they have none none will show up i think that is the service of those communities to make the code easier to read third street will be completely we thought in the next few years not like generations third street will be completely rethought there needs to be advocates to read the planning code and understand what the definitions are and whether those definitions are representative of the neighborhood and right now it is so complex that anybody who is

taking a toll hold and try to do something good for the neighborhood will not be able to do that you know not anybody sitting out through this is you know maybe a couple of people but that's about it to me i did not say it strong enough in my comments but what you said that was what i was thinking about this is about equity and having a few neighborhoods that know how to do that we need a simpler planning code so people can be part of the progress that's why i want to move forward it can be easier and you go forward from there. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i'm of a slightly different

mindset when it comes moving forward i think the department as spent a lot of time and money on the commission is raising questions at least to me why not to move forward i assume the vote is here to support as it moves forward i hope as it goes to the board of supervisors the detailed questions of concern literally expressed by every commissioner for or against will be documented so that the supervisors pass that as ann as a tool to see the nuances in our responses. >> thank you commissioner melgar. >> i'm sorry, i judge have one question it is something said was not what i understood from you earlier which was that what we're talking about for nearing and terryville and n judah is changes on their own not precipitated i will the

article 7 the cu requirement for ncds actually was because we were whooip out something did i get that wrong. >> that was done prior and because the definition of what a active storefront was thanks- >> at a previous ordinance it is as long back story we told the previous supervisor not to control ncds in her district we'll pies that we missed that it was changed the intention to require a cu for ncd in those district by requiring a conditional use for anything on an actual use in 2014 we did a large report on medical cannabis dispensaries in the city we recommended to normalized the use in the districts to create the district and require them to

have transparency so we wander the supervisors we're trying to work with the new supervisor in order to put that regulation back in place. >> hope that answers your question. >> yeah. if per approving today, we're approving something that is not you know, i actually think that alone requires for discussion given what was going on you know ♪ commission i mean - >> this goes to the equity of distribution across the city and i august with you it was a control that was taken out in a previous ordinance that ordinance will put that back. >> supervisor tang raw can introduce an ordinance to put it back. >> i guess gesture to her i

said oh, this article 7 i'll put it in there i reject saying that that makes the conversation more complicateed. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. any additional commissioner comments. >> commissioner johnson. >> i'd like to adapt a recommendations for approval i believe the staff change to allow - can you come up i can read it from the packet but you're here. >> the. >> staff represents approval with modifications those administrations will continue to review and refine the proposed ordinance to make sure the land

use controls will be maintained we're allowed to make non-substantive changes the city attorney is good at telling us when we are doing that sometimes, the change it not a change to the land use we specifically are calling out to maintain the planning code we can amended the planning code to do that. >> in a substantive change to the ordinance staff what make that go change without coming back to the commission. >> exactly. >> only based on if it is a current land use we're trying to preserve. >> okay okay so i'd like to make the recommendation for approval with that change thank you. >> second. >> shall i call the question? commissioners. >> please. there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendations for approval with staff modifications with the subjective changes to maintain the land use control

commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar no commissioner moore no commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioner melgar and commissioner moore voting against. >> commissioners, that places you under your the fiscal year 2017 and 2019 it possible presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners for the record john rahaim we're at budget yet and seems like we were here a month ago and indeed back i'll not make most of presentation but leave that to

the finance manager the first place in about 6 years no new revenue growth in the department we have sfwlooichlthsd record level we're consistent with last year's revenues but we are seeing no additional growth that combined with the additional costs related to labor costs and other costs at the city level we're more caution than we have been in terms of taking on new you'll hear the mayors bucket direction we're not permitted to add new positions we can replace open positions but not allowed to add new positions the budget you'll see proposed for next fiscal year is on par with this year's budget in terms of revenues and we will ton to monitor the next few months to where the next

project applications come in but just could reiterate we have peaked out for now from the last several years with that, i would ask dementia to. >> good afternoon. i'm deborah i'm here to present our proposed budget i'm going to walk through the current year projections we have a motion and a second be bagging our budget we're proposing and the division work program staffing and i will with calendar to remind you of what the next month's look like and wanted to let know we presented at historic preservation commission yesterday and they did not have any amendments or changes to what we're proposing here today and i will mention this again

we'll be returning in two weeks in you have any requests to make changes to the budget we will take into account incorporate our feedback and then have time to come back with that presentation for you, we have to summit to the mayor's office okay there are two items we want to bring up are general citywide related items we we have a financial system city that is decades old we are in the process of replacing it we'll see changes i want to bring this up for the current year the formulate and presentation should look familiar but in the next several my goodness months we'll be incorporating in future presentations we bring to you as director rahaim just mentioned

the mayor's budget instructions no new position and a 3 percent reduction in general plans to luckily we're mostly a self-supporting department the figure we made the reductions ♪ proposal $51,000 for each fiscal year and again is because we've received little general plan support bans our self-supporting nature the current year record high this is not budgeted projected revenue our actuals are going to come in as you can see $3.2 million shy of our budget has been and so we will reduce our expenditures to match that we within our actually revenues for

this year and when we put together the budget for next year it looks like within the department as well citywide there is this trend of growth so next year's budgeted we'll project this year's tussles >> looking at the dollars and looking at the volume the volume is just slightly lower end up with the year slightly lower than last year the revenues are slightly last year the volume was lower and mentioned we are seeing on overall plat you but

as you can see from the picture we're looking at record high numbers over the same level will continue in the future budget year. >> given this assumptions we're proposing a budget with the revenues here for all to be approximately $47.9 million mostly the for services the fees and what we bring into work we do in the planning department so we anticipated revenues are pronged to decreasied not as muh as you might expect given the current year incorporate the cpi adjustments the consumer price index will adjust our numbers

that is something we will do across the board and our grant portfolio we are hopefully and anticipate one and a half million dollars in grant, of course, many of those applications are not submitted yet that number may changes in the fiscal year once we're going and get the applications out and the responses this is what we anticipate to receive the office of citizen complaints funding level as you can see is approximately the same and development impact fees we have 3 big projects in the current year recommending to contributing and portsmouth square were the two biggest ones and also - that's the doctor

about $2 million a one time funding for the projects that came from impact fees the expenditure research other is remaining the same and the general plan general fund is automatic claublthd after salary and benefits increases are input that number will go up the budget system clakdz automatically balances against the cost increases put sglooifrnthsdz that the system gave us as opposed to to the year budget a lot of times people like to talk about the grants so i put a slide in her and sheila here if you have additional questions

later she'll come to speak she's the grant manage for the department and has detailed knowledge the one thing to note here is that the two the first 5 will probably look familiar and the bottom of the list are new grant we'll be politically for the department didn't currently have and not received previously this is exciting to have couple possible funding sources for some of the work. >> this budget shows what we'll be doing with the phone money the vast majority is going to salary and fringe that is the personal costs for the department the overhead number is a number calculateed the

county wide allocation is something that each department pays into so not a cost that we effect that cost is told to us

the non-personal services a change there that change is mostly duo to a reduction in contract outside and so that reduction is to match the decreased revenue budget we're projecting so again, the budget we're putting in for revenue is to match our year tussles to the budget will the tussles had remain the same this is the area we're making a vast difference the materials and supplies goes down because one time costs generally related to staff and technology and those one time costs are not there we see a reduction in supplies and materials as well capital outlay and equipment is anything that is not that is all enough to be considered supplies things to like servers for example, they are more expensive than 5 thousand dollars there's a excuse me - a cap for materials and supplies the because of equipment project is the change here is actually not related to a change in anything we're doing in the budget so much as we're doing in the department so that's a change in where you'll see the expenses in the budget the cost there here is already a cost we're paying related to the staffing we have for the backlog of the abatement and the salary line is showing in the project line the continuous of what

we're doing a change in where the number shows up and the services in other departments that is what we pay the other city departments like rent and e-mail and there are some changes we're proposing most notely hoping to decrease our what we call work orders with the department of human services to reflect our actual services use an agreement that we have with the court that we are hoping to extend so we can get the funding into two fiscal years instead of one fiscal year we can continue that same project with them and then additionally, there is the agreement with them we want to reflect our actual costs that fabulous we're hoping will come down and we are proposing that

in the budget. >> i'm going to get into staffing in a minute i see other areas people like to talk about the changes so one thing i want to note we have to put a number of new positions in the current fiscal year we always put new positions as a portion of the whole the hiring didn't happen the first day so our budget increased by 4.7 ftes for the annualtion of those positions on that budget went up 4 about the 78 over the current year budget they we were able to make reductions around the attrition changes that did bring us down so let me take you to the picture that looks almost ideal

with the staffing projection as the director mentions we're not proposing new positions we're hoping to repurpose to the existing vacant positions one for a development agreement and the other to add a staff member at the pick but again as you can see it is essential the same make up this year and we're proposing for next year - what the divisions do i brought in the work program slides you'll notice the numbers for the ftes for budget and the fte in the work program are slightly different that's because the budget assumes a vacant throughout the year from people changing jobs and

turnover and the work program assumes that people will be doing this work so if someone is in the spot right now they'll keep on doing it those numbers will be higher than the budget the fte numbers this is really getting into more the reflection of what the distributions e divisions do i believe we have staff here if you have questions about the activity the current planning the largest division the vast majority of work for the processing and, of course, the historic preservation commission and i think public information and the process maintenance improvement and management and administration it is where the current planning division work will be dedicated as proposed for the next year

citywide although fewer people are many more categories to go through the first slide are the ongoing work the core will functions things like that that the updates and the policy zoning area plans the information analysis group is a lot of data crunching and city design and, of course, the administration and then the second slide the citywide here - is these are the initiative that i do want to point out a couple of them the title has changed the same initiative emerging southeast has been called the next generation and civic center the heart of city and the work activity my understanding continue and updated name but we have 3 new initiative

they're proposing in the next fiscal year 6, 7 and 8 housing for all and advancing community pick. >> and getting now onto the environmental planning the environmental application review for both private sponsors and the process maintenance and review and management and administration and zoning we have the zoning administration and the code enforcement with the ones in place a. >> the administration has a droshgdz office a range of activities and people including the communication and special projects and admin and financial supervisors and it operations and the commission office

probably the one you're most familiar with. >> so that's the broad overview of the budget. for the fiscal year 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 next year we'll come back with the changes we'll develop about a year from now by the way, because we have the rolling system we have both years proposed right now and we will get 2017-2018 fixed at the end of that process and 2018-2019 we can change afterward as the director said we're proposing to base next year's budget on the tussles and 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 a dollars 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 updating 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 inputcy or frame expression. >> i've - get the architect talk about what they're thinking. >> michael the architect so commissioner moore we the traditional windows typically found in the city were wood

windows typically when new wood windows come in their aluminum clad that tend to be an industry for maintenance stand point found that to be an issue if more historic projects i've had planning approval and then clad if you're talking about more of a dimensional issue in terms of taking in the frame we certainly can do that. >> we achieve that are you would you consider that as an idea. >> yes. >> if you need any help from the commissioners. >> i'm in agreement the changes that were made to the facade by the staff and the project sponsor and the dr requesters i think have improved the facade it works and it does what the is supposed to do like the dr requester prefers the oldest but everyone has their

choices what you've done works enernex reportly i'll support it. >> i want more dimension and if this to the building creating and middle ground of the modern building well prorpthsdz i am comfortable. >> jonas would you recommend we take dr and make that a. >> is that a motion. >> i make a motion to take dr and approve the project except for the refinement of the windows profile. >> i'll second that. >> very good, commissioners. a motion there is a motion that has been seconded and approve the project as proposed with further refinement of window

profiles commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner melgar commissioner moore and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and i have no other items under our discretionary review calendar simply general public comment there are no speaker cards. >> >> any general public comment seeing none, the meeting is width greetings, friends.

width readings, friends. you look absolutely wonderful. thank you for joining us at the 2017 black history month kickoff celebration in this magnificent city hall rotunda. my name is all the worse camera on. chairperson of the black history month committee of the san francisco african-american historical and cultural society. the committee members join me in welcoming you.