we saved another black man. we helped another family. thank you, i'm forever humble and appreciative for this opportunity. i won't let anyone down. skies aren't the limit. there is life beyond the stars. [applause] >> thank you, and thank you all so much for being here today, supporting the program, for the enthusiasm and the gusto of our partners for making this a success. and your support as you go on to realize the full potential. i want to give a shoutout to

charity cultural services on the ground making this work, a great partner. and local 6. ok. so, everybody, again, every person here probably needs to be called out by name. this has been a massive effort of coordination and making sure that the city is really aligned to achieving the full potential that it can. i do want to close by dedicating this to sharon hewitt. she was a local leader. she dedicated her life and her career to making sure that people who were excluded and economically ignored had a voice. and she deserves the honor of this ceremony because it was her efforts that really saw some of this through. so thank you, all, for being here. applaud applaud

>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, march 1, 2018. i'd like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobil devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] and welcome commissioner johnson. >> here. [laughter] >> commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, item one case number 2015-0825drp on 89 roosevelt way.

item two, case 2016-009062drp, 505 grand view avenue, discretionary review. item number, case number 2017-008783cua, 1 front street conditional use authorization to july 12, 2018. item four for 2017-007063drm at 518 brannan street proposed for mandatory discretionary review and indefinite nit continue wants. we received a request from the supervisor's office with agreement from the project sponsor for item 10, case 2016-011486cua at 1713 yosemite avenue conditional use authorization. and i have no speaker card. >> any public comment on the

items proposed for continue wants? seeing none, we'll close public comments. commissioner koppel? >> proposed to move items one, two, three, four and 10 -- move to continue items one, two, three, four, and 10 to the dates specified. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. [roll call] >> so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and i do apologize, commissioner melgar did inform me she would be absent today. i forgot about that. commissioners, next on your agenda is commission matters. item five, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner rich ards. >> i have a couple of things today to chat about. i think the first thing, though, i wanted to say was a

huge congratulations to fellow commissioner, commissioner moore, who was elected a fellow to the -- let me get the acronym right -- aicp. so, congratulations, commissioner moore. that is quite an accomplishment. and welcome, too, commissioner johnson. we have another commissioner johnson. it is great sitting next to you. i look forward to a good four years on the commission with you, hopefully. a couple of things -- one of most interesting things i read in the week was "new york times" on sunday, tech eyes the ultimate startup. an entire city was in the review section. it talks about some folks here in the bay area who are trying to optimize cities because they think the bay doesn't work quite right was the quote. what if people who build circuits and social networks can build cities, too? whole new places designed from scafm and freed from broken policies. last october, i'm sure several

of you heard that sidewalks labs, an alphabet google company, is teaming up with the city of toronto to redevelop a stretch from the internet up. it's a former industrial area on the waterfront that i've actually been to. i've walked through it. it will be an interesting tale to see what happens. but tech type as much as people talk about the parochial way of building cities but cities don't seem to be evolving into more efficient version of themselves. people talk about how cities evolve. to planners and architects all of this sounds like the nigh y*efpty of newcomers mistaking political problems for engineering puzzles. what we really need, they say, is to fix the cities we already have, not set off to search and build new ones. with cities, this means stripping away the history of other utopias, the building codes that shaped san francisco, does this sound

familiar, folks? and then one last quote here from a professor at berkeley who wrote a book called "space suit." i'm going to buy it and read it. he says it is very easy to get a sense of déja vu here, says a designer and berkeley professor who describes this history in his recent book called "space suit." this was talking about how after the book apparently talks about how after men landed on the moon, that we're going to take that technology and fix all the problems in the cities. and i can't imagine probably redevelopment was something that was a tangent or part of the daisy chain of that effort. technologically optimized cities failed then for the same reason they would be unsuccessful now. technology can reduce traffic or connect you faster to a ride home. but a city is not its fundamental -- in its fundamental level optimizable, he said. a city's dynamism derives from

its inefficiencies from people leaving unexpectedly. i urge you to read that. a couple of other things. i did a walk-around with jeff jocelyn and david winslow. we applied the u.d.g.s to some of the projects in the valley and it's interesting what we came up with. we looked at the building and said would this building be built today given the u.d.g.s and the exercise was pretty eye-opening, especially for ozzie rom who heads the council. i looked forward to do this as well in north beach from some of the folks over there. so, maybe if any other commissioners are interested to see how the u.d.g.s are applied to world examples, that would be great. one other question, i know that it was mentioned the fact that this commission has the power to change the mantratility on the percents, up and down by 10%. i think it is something until

we have rule section 317 reform, we should actually consider as a commission. that's it. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> it is just 11 years ago that the planning department presented to the commission at that time a informational presentation on the numbers of gas stations. the commission that the time was already very concerned about the decline about gas stations. so, the department looked all the way back to 1990 where there were 151 stations. then looking forward to 1995, there were 136 and in 2000, there were 122. in 2006, there were 111. 11 years later and i would like to ask the department, the director, to hopefully take this wonderful piece of mapping that is already in the system and help us understand what has happened since 2011, what has

been demolished and what is under consideration to be demolished because many of the gas station sites, particularly at the corners where there is new residential development are of productive and intense land use gas stations. however, it leaves the city, in terms of emergency response ands so properly serving the gasoline. many people drive two or three miles to find a gas station and it is a pattern that is not desirable. as i looked further through my files, i found what it is that is cleaning up. in 2011, the department used to produce something which looked like this. do you remember that? that is actually a map, which shows residential development in the pipeline. what has been built, what hasn't been built and it shows in a very graphic and readable form the kind of clusters and trends of the residential

development that is happening. it would be interesting to build on that particular piece of information. the department has fantastic data and takes that forward to where we are today. that's like a visualization. a visualization of where housing is and where it is going. those are my two comments. >> thank you. commissioner johnson? >> hi, everyone. i just wanted to take a moment to express how honoured i am to be the newest member of the san francisco planning commission. i admire the dedication you bring to the work. a little bit about me. i have spent my entire career advocating for opportunity-rich resilient communitis that reflect the diversity and opportunity for economic ability that makes a city so great. so, i'm excited to work along sao*ilds you and advance a san

francisco in which people of all backgrounds have the opportunity to live, work and thrive. thank you. >> thank you. and welcome to the commission. i watched your hearing and was impressed about your background and knowledge about these issues. it will be great to have your perspective here. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> seeing no other comments, can we -- >> sorry, director -- >> department matters. item six, director's announcements. >> thank you, jonas. my only announcement today is to welcome commissioner johnson. on behalf of the department, we welcome you and congratulate you on your appointment and look forward to working with you. the workload is pretty somewhat heavy here. [laughter] so, we're happy to help you along the way and whenever you have any concerns or comments or questions, feel free to call me or any of the staff involved. so, welcome. >> thank you.

>> item seven, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> good afternoon. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. this week's land use meeting was canceled but the full board was in session and the mission rock project passed its second read. the zoning map and planning code amendments to establish the gearey masonic temple passed its first read. and the appeal for the environmental termination of 401 main street was withdrawn. and also last, but certainly not least, the board appointed our planning commission, smais johnson. welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sorry. there is a board of appeals report that was e-mailed to me from the acting zoning administrator. if you give me just one moment, the court of appeals did meet last night and considered one

project of interest to the commission. on march 9, 2017, the commission heard a discretionary review no that wased to construct a new single-family home on a triangular substandard lot. they added seven specific conditions, most notably to premove the fourth floor, to provide a light to protect property line windows on the adjacent window, to reduce the size of the roof deck, and relocate it from the front to the centre of the building and to have d.p.w. review the proposed shared curb cut proposal for safety. after the commission's action, the project sponsor revised the building permit to meet these conditions. additionally, d.p.w. reviewed the curb cut proposal and had no objection. so, that component of the promise remained. the building permit application was subsequently issued on november 30, 2017. and the project sponsor then appealed the permit and requested the reversal of the conditions to remove the fourth floor. adding the lightwell.

and reducing and shifting the roof deck. after much deliberation,s the board voted 4-1 to grant the appeal and remove the lightwell and allow the roof deck to increase in size and be relocated at the permitholder's discretion. however, the board did not reinstate the fourth floor. if there are no question, commissioners, we can move on to -- >> hold on. commissioner richards. >> two things. first i thought maybe mr. starr would mention this, but i did read of interest to everybody sitting up here on the commission that the board passed unanimously failure to file form 700 penalty, which would mean that if you do not file on a timely basis, which i think is april 1 or april 2 for us, we don't get to vote on subsequent agendas. that is an interesting one here. it is in the examiner this morning, or yesterday. the other thing is potentially after hearing this of the board of appeals we hear these kinds

of things happen all the time. would it be of any benefit to have a joint hearing with the board of appeals just to discuss some of the policy things that we've been formulating around roof decks so we don't get these one-off decisions? at least where they can understand where we're coming from. >> we'd have to talk to the city attorney. the board of appeals acts as kind of -- it is a quasi-judicial body. having sat on it, it's -- i mean, it has every right and authority to do what they do. so, it is a little odd. i think we'd have to talk to the city attorney and fashion if we can do that and how it would work. >> yeah. i think just to talk about some of the policies, like the flat policy, things like that. for them not to understand where we're coming from and what the basis is and then reverse things not knowing that, really doesn't serve any of us. >> yeah. no, planning staff goes to the board of appeals and argues our position. i mean, whether it was their position or not when we took

d.r., but the planning staff advocates for the commission's positions that we took d.r. and maybe changed to a project. that's the kind of -- the planning department's position. >> sure. >> in arguing before the board of appeals. but they do often reverse that. >> sure. i'm going to be interested and watch this 2483 diamond street and see what happens. >> very good, commissioners. that places us under general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the naubl are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission exempt with 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 for up to three minutes. i did have the one speaker card. >> yes. welcome. >> welcome, commissioner johnson. and i do recommend you watch that hearing. it is a very interesting

hearing on diamond street. good afternoon. here's a little hand-out for you. not to be -- to correct something that commissioner richards said. it's not the value of the -- in the rh-1, sir. it is not value in the rh-1 that you can do. that's done by the zoning administrator. what you can do is reduce the -- or change the number of the demo calc. you can adjust -- that's what it says. it's on the fourth page. it's not -- the zoning administrator does the number which is now 1.9 million. you do the percentages for the demo calcs, just to clarify that. what i'm giving you is a letter requesting that you deal with a definition tantamount to demolition. a confluence of stuff is coming up. i know you want to do it. i know there is a lot of energy there and i hope you do it.

beyond the demo calcs, what i submitted to you is something that i proposed back in 2016, which i did call a qualityive definition compared to the quantitative definition to the demo calcs and i'll change it and call ate descriptive definition. it is not a perfect definition, but it is a good starting point to jump off from, rather than the numbers. it is a descriptive definition. because everyone agrees the demo calcs are problematic. the other point i wanted to make in the hand-out is that i do think you need two definitions. i think the building department staff, they're out in the field doing the work, the construction and they see it. the planning staff goes out if there is a complaints. most people don't file a complaint with the planning enforcement. they just call building and it's less there. it calls for better coordination when things come up. but i'm more interested in what happens at the intake.

what happens when a project's with the staff, with the planner, with the rdat. when you do those through the whole process and how it is evaluated in terms of some of those a criteria for section 317. which i think are valuable. i think the relative affordability issue is paramount. is paramount. and that's basically it. so, happy reading. and i left one for commissioner melgar. so, hope she gets it. should i leave one for her? thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm steven buss. oh, before i start. congratulations, commissioner john son, on your appointment and i think this was your first hearing if i'm not positive. anyway, cool. congrats. i came by last week and showed you a graph of the planning

application pipeline and the -- and the crash that we've seen. since mid 2016. and i asked the commission to please direct the planning department staff to study the -- or to include the incoming applications on the housing balance report. i don't know -- i'd love to know if you've asked planning to do that and if you haven't, please ask statute to include that in the upcoming housing balance report. and maybe in the quarterly report with the numbers. i meant to go to the board of supervisors on tuesday and ask them. unfortunately i do have a day job. it's kind of tough. so i'd really, really, really like you to ask the staff to

study this because we're going to see a collapse in construction in about a year and a half to two and a half years because the pipeline is completely dried up. so, please. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. laura clark, m.b. action. reiterating what steven was saying, that it looks like permit applications are falling off of a cliff. and i hope that you are treating this with the amount of urgency that this subject deserves. and an additional thing to note as we were talking about the board of appeals, the small projects that are not affected by the inclusionary requirements are lost when this body creates instability and unpredictability. when a permit applicant cannot know what will happen, they are more likely to give up and more likely to say eff it. and i don't want those one,

two, three, unit projects to be lost because that is where we are losing them. the first project that i ever got involved in, they have put it on pause. they gave up. a little two-unit house that will probably never come online because they knew what they were facing. they're architects so they looked at the opposition and they said, you know, i don't think we're going to win this one. and they gave up. and that is a unit that, you know, i don't know. 10 years from now, when? when are we going to see those kinds of units come online? and the more predictability you send in those projects, that in general they're the highest likelihood to get their permits and then get built. the large projects are the ones where we see that 35,000. maybe they get built, maybe they don't. shipyard, who knows the dirt is going to kill everyone.

those are places we don't necessarily know a massive megaproject. we don't know if the fnlses at the end of the battle are going to work out. but those small projects, that is one person taking on a mission for themselves. saying i want to build my little three-unit house. and those are the ones that we can be the most confident will go from permit application to being built. but they will never be proposed if this body makes unpredictable decisions like removing a floor randomly because it is random. if the person had come up and said here's my aging grandmother, please sympathize with this woman, she deserves a bedroom, you would have ruled in the other direction. it could have been a fake grandmother. right? he just didn't know that he should bring an old grandmother to pretend who was going to live with him. we shouldn't have random decisions based on how much they pull at your heart strings and appear to deserve the zoned capacity. it needs to be what is the rules, follow the rules. thank you. >> thank you.

any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. jonas, have we confirmed a date for the joint d.b.i.? >> we did. we just heard back from my counterpart at the b.i.c. and we agreed to april 12. >> ok. so, we'll talk about demo calcs and rules during that hearing. but that is calendar notices will go out appropriately. commissioner richards? >> i guess we've had a couple of members of the public last week and this week talk about the pipeline. do you have any quick sense of -- that it is indeed going off a cliff? >> i would suggest that's a bit of an exaggeration that it is going off a cliff. we saw a drop of applications in the middle of 2016 and then an increase in application in the last quarter of 2017. so i'm happy to bring those numbers to you to look at those. >> great. >> and just to remind the public that the commission did

review and generally agree with how the pipeline report is portrayed. i think we had just last week or two weeks ago about that very issue. that information will be in more detail as well. thank you. >> if there's nothing further, move on to item eight for connect s.f. this is an informational presentation. >> great, commissioners. doug johnson, i'm joined by linda meckler from transportation authority. i'll give you a brief update on connect s.f. we were last here in november 2017 and will return again in

about a month and a half for your approval of this vision and any further responses to any questions that you might have today. important question is, what is connect s.f.? it is an aligned effort between a number of city agencies and it is really different in that it is a ground-up process. we started this process together, to look at long-term transportation needs for san francisco in a kind of explicit recognition that we are and have struggled in the past to plan for the future of today that we're experiencing right now. we are before you right now, the first phase is the vision fades. think about it as setting a target for ourselves. but it is important in that we'll use this vision in the next two to three years both in terms of transsit and street project and also with an eye

towards funding decisions at the county-wide transportation plan. as well as the planning department's first update of the transportation element of the general plan in 20 years. the process involves three different streams of input. you can see there's a general public out reach stream. there's a futures task force that we've convened with approximately 150 members. as well as an interagency working team. you can see right now we're at that hopefully rather prominent target in the middle, bringing you this interim step of the vision and recognizing there are still years of work that lie ahead of us. the vision has definitely been brought to you by a very wide variety of out reach methods dating back to the subway vision over a year and a half ago.

the effort is involved, everything from focus groups to online ads to pop-ups and other types of engagement efforts. and we've reached over 5,000 folks online. our focus groups included in language events for over end as well as reaching over 100 folks contacted through various c.b.o.s in the city. one of the things that's extremely unique in my opinion about connect s.f. is it is using a scenario planning process and i certainly wouldn't want to trivialize the difficulty right now of doing long range transportation planning. there are a lot of moving parts. obviously people are very focused on technology and vehicle technology in particular. that will be in potentially

public and private as well. we know there are many moving parts, many of which we know we'll be dealing with in the timeline of connect s. if and some that we're far less clear on. what is the nature of work? where is the regional economy going to go? how are people's faiths in public institutions going to hold up? what might that look like as well? but the effort that we hosted and the futures task force was focused on two issues. you may recall when i was here in september, you talk about how you use these two key issues to create four different scenarios to basically engage the public and engage the future's task force and what we saw at the future's task force back in october was a very

strong support to move towards building bridges future in the upper right, the green and that people do feel across the task force and we heard this as well in the public, that wherever we may be, that is not where we are. people do certainly see and are experiencing a great deal of concern about economic polarization. i think the fact just in general that we went out to talk to people about transportation and i'd say a good solid half the comments ended up being about land use and affordability was very telling about where it is whint rises on the radar today. the feedback we got in the task force, that was affirmed in online surveys as well as in our focus groups. no matter the method or group of folks that we were brought

together, we were seen consistent, definitely not uniform support for these kinds of -- for the building bridges future. the vision is anchored by what was originally to be anchored by four goals. but the fifth goal was added in large part based on what we were hearing from members of the public and members of the task force. in order to reach a big, bold vision for san francisco, the government's accountability and predictability engagement is going to be very important for us to speed up the rate of change and the rate at which we respond to challenges. a couple of highlights i'll mention for the vision. there is a great deal of detail available to you at connect s.f. if you want to pore over about a 15-page glossy.

but certainly it very much focuses on increased transportation choice. the reality is, as we look ahead to a growing san francisco, increasing the number of people in every type of vehicle will be critically important. increasing the number of people walking and cycling as well will be essential to move folks around. you'll also see very much an eye on building the next generation of transit projects, whether that is within the only serving san francisco, but also obviously projects such as high speed rail and other intercounty connections. street space would, over time, be reallocated to those who move the most people. as efficiently as possible and as sustainably as possible. we also expect to see construction continuing in the future.

as a result of expansion of housing opportunities in particular to try and increase affordability. but as well to continue to be a cultural leader and jobs leader. i think in order for those things to happen, though, projects are going to need to move more quickly. and this gets back to the infrastructure projects. they'll need to be developed more quickly and more consistently. not a lot of time to retread old decisions. and the neighbourhoods both new and established are places that are clean and desirable for present and future residents alike. in terms whaof's next, as i noted, we'll return back to you all in about six weeks. on this item, i'm happy to bling back anymore details. we specifically want to flag phase two which will be starting out at the end of the

spring. we'll include two main components, transit corridor study and the streets and freeway study. the titles are hopefully rather clear to you. but obviously looking at the next generation of transit projects for san francisco, over the next 25 to 50 years, as well as looking at how we will start to adapt potentially and reconsider our streets over the same amount of time. those studies will dovetail very much as we look at what it will be like to get around in all parts of san francisco in the future. most of those projects -- both of those studis are intended to identify projects and investment programmes and policies that then flow into the county's transportation plan as well as to the transportation element. as i said before. so, with that, i'm happy to take any questions or if you have any questions for my

colleague, let me know. >> all right, thank you. let's first see if there is any public comment on this item. any public comment? >> i don't -- i don't -- i don't drive so i'm always on muni unless my husband is driving me someplace, which is nice when he does it. there was an article in yesterday's examiner if you saw about the chariot permits that the article -- the tight is chariot permit endangers public transit. and i made a copy, two copis if you want to read it. if you hadn't, i'll give it over. but i guess the crux of it is is what is the impact on muni on this and what is the problem -- what is the issue with people who can afford it on these thing and everybody else who isn't that can afford it. you've seen this with the google buses. ms. hester talked about this the last couple of weeks. you know, what's that

relationship? the buses come first and then the houses. the houses come first. the buses. you know all that stuff. but i just thought it was a very important article in terms of raising the issues of raising inequality in there. i didn't go to any of those. oh, my time didn't start. my husband told me an interesting fact. it costs $12,000 per employee to ride on those google buses, which i think most of us can agree are not always full. so, 12,000. for his point of view, it was like gosh, these people are geting this tax-free benefit. but it's also to think about the $12,000 per employee that these companies are paying that -- how could they somehow benefit the public, overall public more given that the buses have so many issues and so many neighbourhoods.

not just noe valley but they're everywhere. and now the chariot will be everywhere. so, there's a little article in yesterday's examiner in the op-ed and that is all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. ms. clark. >> if we want to see less congestion, we should adopt congestion pricing. and encourage people to do car pooling and private buses, if private buses get more people to a place with less cars. that would be good. i'd also like to bring back the trolleys and invest in part and all that good stuff. but congestion pricing is how we should deal with congestion. >> any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll open it to commissioners. commissioner richards. >> so, interestingly enough,

the last time the sfmta adopted congestion pricing, i was half a block inside the perimeter and didn't like it. because that meant every time i left my neighbourhood, i had to pay. it's like the thing that i saw in the s.f. business times. people want affordable housing exempt if it impacts their ability to get around. so the support drops. really interesting. i started to participate in the connect s.f. and got busy with other things and i never finished it. i think it is a really great exercise pulling everybody together to actually figure out what we want to do. there are things that are coming that even since i think connect s.f. started back in the spring. you talked about major corridor lines like sba-27. so, how do these things that re-emerging as ideas play into this? and how do we meet the fact that, you know, we're going to

need more transportation because zoning is going to potentially allow for it? i just want to make sure that we're planning on what we any the horizon is going to look like. >> we'll have the chance to bring you in the late spring some analysis as we start to look at the 2040 and 2050 technical analysis. one of issues we're struggling with right now is how we think about potentially trying to test different 827 implementation scenarios because it could obviously shift development patterns that transportation would need to plan for and respond to. >> the only thing is -- and i don't know how eloquent i can say this -- the way we do things today, we buffer it with the way it's going to come. but the way the world moves kind of on demand. you know, i push a buttton, i get food. i push a buttton and i get a car.

all this push buttton stuff is incredibly convenient. how does a city evolve with the way the world is moving in terms of how they live. >> i think a couple of things. part of what i think you see is increased demand for convenient service that may somehow suggest that some of the existing transit service isn't that convenient. i would offer -- i think one of the important things about this next phase of work is trying to continue to further, and particular muni's efforts to increase their fleet speeds. the more folks they can move, the more competitive it is with lyft and uber and those very much on demand things. so, long-term, i think in the vein of connect s.f. and thinking long-term, i won't speak for how m.t.a. might

think about its operations differently. but obviously there is a whole new world of technology that is going to be available to public agencies like muni as wellen they will obviously, over time, have to potentially evolve their planning and operations and service delivery and within this timeframe, lit look different. >> if i were ed riskin and i don't presume to be or know more than he does, my goal would be to put lyft and chariot out of business because we have something that can compete with them on the same par for convenience and cost and access for all types of communities, whether they are challenged physically or community of concern. that is really where the thinking needs to go. otherwise, we're trying to play ketchup. >> indeed. >> commissioner koppel. >> yeah. thanks to the staff for the good report.

a couple of points directed toward m.t.a. and supervise source and mayor's office. i've been working with them on sustainability issues and things such as electric vehicle charging stations and whatnot. technology is definitely changing the way we move around town. i still think walking, biking and transit is the way to go. especially in this city. i would like to see some type of incentivizing for more electric vehicles. we live in a small city and the chevy volt, for instance, can drive 238 miles on a full charge. i see the list and the ubers and the chariots driving around town. i don't have a problem with any of them. i would rather see them not producing carbon emissions and i think that's a lot more possible than we think it is.

there was more incentives helping people in that direction, that we'd see more of it. also don't forget about muni. yes, i understand that getting on the end judda at 8:30 in the morning is quite a chore and we could use more of those trains. but i do want everyone to remember that when you do look up and see those lines, they're up there powered by completely carbonless power from the hetch hetch dam that run this is city and doinl. if it were up to me, we'd have more trolleys, more electric vehicles like bart and potentially more subways. because of strictly the fact that they're run on electricity and this is electricity, we get clean from our hetch hetch system. >> thank you. commissioner fong. >> thank you. i think this is great.

thank you very much. this is one very large piece of the puzzle to a larger solution. i think for most of us, we feel the growth of san francisco on the streets and i'm happy that this programme and report came out to us at this time. there probablying isn't one silver bullet in solving a ul of these problems, including congestion pricing or not. may or may not be part of that solution. i am curious going forward how it changes the ground of real estate in san francisco as we move to autonomous cars. what happens to parking garages? what happens to cars that are left on the street only to be used ton weekends by many of us and our regular commute is occupied by autonomous cars. should government take a position and establish policy to deincentivize keeping more than one car for yourself.

there is an opportunity to park our weekend car somewhere else and have it brought to you. that is an extravagant idea but maybe there are other solutions to gain back the roadway. and i start to think about like bush or pine street that is obviously during commute hours busy one way or the other and if we had the opportunity to take away the parked cars, you maybe actually pick up two more lanes and what happens if you dead indicate those two morning traffic ok and afternoon traffic westbound. a slight example. but that can happen in different places. the other strange thing is if we already moved to personal cars, think about the weight that is removed from san francisco. the sheer tonnage and what that sort of means to our environment, air quality, et. >> commissioner moore? >> fascinating. thank you to commissioner koppel. you are raising fabulous issues, particularly the mo

comprehensive expansion of our unground as well as above ground transportation system based on electric notice and carbon-free powering these systems t. question i'm interested in, and you may have said it but i'm not quite sure, is san francisco considering to integrate ride sharing companies into public transportation timing and scheduling so that they become a necessity to public transportation. at this moment, they act on their own in a manner that is less disruptive, particularly to pedestrian safety. other cities around the world were also dealing with the uber lyft in the making and are actively pursuing that these ride sharing companies need to be integrated into the overall network of transit distribution as well. are you entertaining that as an idea? and as much when you look at other cities around the world, how they're doing.

i share the same question with commissioner fong regarding the driverless vehicles. the first question that is still coming and go ugh through my mind does this mean that more people want to have more cars again rather than fewer. everybody is saying this is much easier because my eyesight is not so good anymore. and i'm going to buy one of those things and i don't have to take my driver's license anymore. there will be more of those things rather than fewer. >> i'll just say that i've researched this quite a bit. and they don't agree on very much right now. we'll see how this plays out in different types of geographies. certainly i think there is ideas about how it might play out in more urban areas where there is a lot of dense network of trips. lots of folks. lots of workers and visitors.

how that plays out, though, changes probably likely very quickly in a more suburban location and even rural locations that are all within a pretty brief vehicle trip of san francisco. at least from a distance perspective. perhaps not from a time perspective. >> one more comment i'd like to make and that is that the chapter of the small cars which are standard to europe has been still skipped here. if i look at two cars and you are taking the space of what we park one in, we have not fully embraced a smaller urban car as one way of dealing with space and right-of-ways and streets. when you looked at the olympics, there were lots of advertising of cars and they were even smaller than the small european cars and i'm wondering if that is something we're looking out, we're also looking at the [inaudible] industry has not fully embraced that model because a lot of

people don't live in dense environments. here we do. these cars are far too large and we could do much better if we would encourage perhaps even taxation based on the actual fl widths and lengths of a car. >> i know in many countries in europe, they charge vehicles based on the horsepower. i think the one thing i would say is a lot of -- some of the sides of the vehicles in the united states is attributable to its safety protocols and standards. it's obviously anticipated that autonomous vehicles would increase vehicle on vehicle collisions. i would never say to zero, but obviously hopefully to something approaching much less than it is today. under that circumstance, you could imagine very quickly, very good reasons to reduce the weight and size of vehicles to take out a loft of the things that are accounted for vehicle on vehicle crashes. >> thank you.

commissioner richards? >> one other thing from a land use point of view. and where the future is going. to commissioner fong's point, he included me on something that i read. it has been talked about a lot. 25% to 30% of the city's land is in streets and roads. if we can repate ri yaitz some of that for housing or whatever other better things we can do just like the undergrounding of the cal-train and 280 and things like that. it would really help out. so i mean, if we can narrow it down to one lane each way, we have a lot of housing in the middle. that is just a thought. >> director? >> thanks. i just wanted to thank doug for all the work on this. this has been a great joint effort between us and the t.a. and the m.t.a. and the office of economic development and we -- just as a reminder that the vision that twe are creating now which was the result of a year and a half of public input is a kind of the umbrella under which a number of

transportation efforts will flow. so, the -- it is purposely high level. and it is purposely kind of broad in its scope so that it can the capture the goals and objectives of a number of different efforts. like the transportation element. like the freeway plan and like a number of other things that are coming up in the next two years. so it's an important kind of guiding document if you will for a number of upcoming transportation initiatives. >> and thank you for this. i think we often find ourselves thinking that transportation planing is kind of lagging behind some of the land use planning. if we just look at kind of van ness v.r.t., your issue about getting projects done quicker and more efficiently, you know i remember when that was in the planning stages when i moved here some 25 years ago and it seems outdated even as it's being built and with fit tames and where we are. it's important for us to think big. we need to invest more in

infrastructure. i think we rely too much on uber and lyft to do some of what we should be doing to build this equitable city. so i appreciate all the work that is going into this and we look forward to having you back. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further we can move on to items 9a, b and c for case numbers 2011-1356m, t and z for administrative code and planning code amendments and zoning map. so, these are general plan amendments, administrative and planning code amendments as well as zoning map amendments. >> commissioners, i'll kick this off if i might. we're very, very pleased to be at this point in a very long process after seven years. we are asking you to start the formal adoption process for the

central soma plan. there will be a number of hearings in the next few weeks. this is the first and we're asking for you to formally initiate that process today. this is the oldest of steve worthheim's children and he has been that the for a number of years, since day one. and as you know, supervisor kim introduced the legislation this week that would enable and help to implement the elements of the central soma plan. this plan we believe directs a certain amount of growth to the right places of the city for that growth and then also creates a substantial part of mitigation funds. so with that, i believe supervisor kim would like to make a few comments. she is in the room and we invite the supervisor up to make those comments. thank you. >> welcome, supervisor kim.

>> hello to the planning commission. to director john rand, chair hillis and i also want to recognize our newest commissioner, commissioner johnson. which i'm sure will be a little confusing for members of the public. but great to see you on bore. yes. this project or this area plan -- my apologies -- has been a long time coming. i first met with the planning department on the central soma and central subway plan in 2011 and i don't -- i'm probably the second most excited person to see this come before you after steve wortheim. i do want to recognize the hard work of steve and the planning department. over the last -- far longer than i've been in office actually for maybe the last eight or nine years t great work it took to get us to this point. and of course i want to recognize our late mayor ed lee who also has his fingerprints all over this area plan. of course, to our planning department and i want to recognize our incredibly active

and engaged community residents. we're very lucky in district six to have residents and leaders that are well-versed on land use and housing and jobs housing balance and have been doing a tremendous job over the last year meeting on a regular basis, coming under the umbrella of we are soma to help ensure that this is a plan that also reflects the needs of our existing residents as well. this is our plan and we want to make sure that central soma reflects the needs of a lot of different stakeholders. district six has long held the burden or role of trying to fit the needs that we have here in the city. whether it's growing jobs, or growing housing as well. but we also have to understand that the central soma plan is one piece of the overall city-wide plan in our jobs housing production and i know that there is a lot of concerns about the jobs housing imbalance within this existing plan. the one thing i should say is that this is one of the few regions or few parts of san francisco where we can build

more jobs. that being said, i do want to see what we can do over the next three months to increase as much housing in this plan as possible. so, within the envelope of the e.i.r. we could probably fit 1,000 more units of housing. how can we work within this timeframe to expand those opportunities. again, because this plan started eight years ago, the needs were a bit different then. we needed a lot more office than we did housing. eight years later, we have a huge housing crisis and we know now that the plan needs to do the best that kit to fulfill both goals. a couple of things that i'm incredibly proud of, one, first and foremost, is that we're hitting 33% affordable housing within this plan. it felt like a dream a few years ago. but i just want to acknowledge the planning domestic for working creatively over the last three years after mayor ed lee and i passed proposition k in 2014, asking the city to

commit to higher levels of affordable and low-income housing within our new area plans. and i think this is a great starting point. two, i'm also excited about the $500 million in investment in both near and long-term service and capacity enhancements to both our local and regional transit. we know again i talked about jobs and housing, but transit is also a key piece to keeping our region moving. and we need to make sure that we're investing in long-term solutions like the downtown extension. like the second transbay and we also need to make sure that we're investing in near term and perhaps more affordable solutions like buses and ferries and also protected bike lanes. there are many ways to get people out of their cars and other modes of transsit and we are excited that this plan invests more dollars into our parks and recreational centers. district six has the fewest and

smallest parks of any district in the city, rivaling the district above us, district three. and we have a lot of work to do. we know that land is very constrained in our district and our community just wants to make sure that we're investing in greatly in our existing rec centres and parks like jane friend rec centre and one of great things that we can do with recreational space is that it doesn't just have to be the traditional ground level park, but our rec centres can build up. so, we can have a multilevel rec centre which will increase double, triple the amount of recreational areas for our families, our youth and our seniors within the same envelope and i'm very excited about the long-term jean friend rec centre capital plan. next, vision zero has been a huge priority for me. i was proud to introduce that in 2014. we have the greatest number of vehicle and pedestrian collisions in the state of california and district six sees a lot of that.