can we get that for the next meeting? >> do we normally request that, peg? if not, this would be -- >> i'm not aware that you have, but we have a current report on that all the time. so, yep. we can bring it. >> talking about adding audits and so forth using the goboc. >> that probably is appropriate as we approach the end of our fiscal year as you know, some, an item to say that, to show the data that mr. bush asked for. >> sure, yep. >> thank you. >> so there being no other business, we'll consider the meeting adjourned. >> so moved.

>> clerk: please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: we do expect commission vice president melgar to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

[agenda item read]. >> clerk: item 2. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item three. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item four. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item five. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: commissioners, further under your consent

calendar, item six, is proposed for indefinite continuance. further still, commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar, item 22, case number 2017001920 dup 2 at 3047 jackson street, parties have come to terms and the d.r.'s have been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance, and i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, jonas. any members of the public who would like to speak on any of the items being proposed for continuance? great. seeing none, we'll close public comment. commission commissioner koppel? >> motion to propose to

continue items one, two, three, four, five, and six. >> second. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: commissioners, that'll place us on your consent calendar. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the public, the commission or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item six was continued

indefinitely, so that leaves us with items seven. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item eight. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item nine. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: all right. are there any members of the public that would like to pull any of these items off consent calendar? all right. seeing none, we'll pull those items off consent calendar. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: thank you. i move to approve items seven, eight, and nine under your consent calendar. >> clerk: thank you. under your consent calendar -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0, and places us on item ten under commission matters for the consideration of adoption draft minutes of april 12, 2018 from the joint hearing with the building inspection commission and the draft minutes for the regular hearing of april 12,

2018. >> president hillis: any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes on april 12, 2018 for the regular and joint hearings, on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and places us on item 11 for commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i don't know if anybody saw the chronicle yesterday, wednesday. the headline is home prices --

if the profit return's not

there, nothing's going to get built, so i'll leave that with you. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move onto item 12, director's announcements. >> good morning, commissioners. the only thing i would comment on is having come back from the director's conference in new orleans. consistent with commissioner richards comments, is the number of cities grappling with this issue. new orleans is seeing major displacement happening in many of their neighborhoods and really are not as well equipped in some ways as we are, things put in place to counteract some of these major issues. it's happening in major cities around the

>> first on the agenda was a resolution by supervisor kim establishing the lgbtq historical sites, preserving existing spaces of the leather and lgbtq communities. public comment consisted of 20 commenters all in support. most commenters identified as part of the leather community. supervisor ronen also proposed support of the district. at the end of the hearing, the committee voted to -- voted unanimously to forward the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. last on the last use agenda was a hearing called by supervisor ronen to clarify timelines for starting construction on seven affordable housing projects in district nine with the goal of developing solutions that would bring the units to the communities more quickly. mohc provided a presentation. additionally staff from planning and dbi attended and

responded to questions, along with representatives from various affordable housing developers in mohcd. speakers from the various mission based affordable housing developers and public activists groups provided public comment. no action was taken by the board as this item was information only. at the full board this week, the lower polk street alcohol restricted use district passed its first read, and the board also considered the conditional use appeal for a project located at 799 castro street. the proposed project would essentially demolish an existing commercial space and residential unit at the front of the lot, construct a single-family unit in its place and ad an accessory dwelling unit in the rear of the lot. the project would result in a total of three units, two of which would be rent controlled. commissioners you heard this item on february 22nd of this

year and voted to approve the project. the project also required a rear yard variance which the zoning administrator approved on april 11th. the appellant raised two major issues. first the planning commission did not approve either of the two designs submitted by the project sponsor but instead approved the plan with the condition that the appellant work with the project sponsor. during public comment, there were three speakers in favor of the appeal and three against the appeal. supervisor sheehy whose district the project is located in asked questions about the existing units on the lot and the existing commercial space. supervisor tang asked staff how the design of the building would be finalized and supervisor peskin asked the attorney procedural questions related to cu's and variances. in the end seeing no merit to the appeal and that the project added a gain of two dwelling units, supervisor sheehy made a

motion to disapprove the appeal and uphold the planning commission's determination. this passed unanimously. next on the agenda was the condo conversion on 668 page street. commissioners you heard this item on march 29 and disapproved the conowe dergs based on among other things evidence there was an eviction on the property. the appellant appealed saying the commission decision was improper due to its failure to fully consider the facts of the case and the applicable law. the during public comment, there was only one speaker in favor of the appeal but his comments were not really relevant to the case at hand, there were about 20 speaker nz opposition to the appeal, including the relatives of i kiss canada, the woman who had been removed from -- iris

canada, the woman who had been removed from her unit. supervisor tang expressed frustration on the he said, she said nature of the case, and pointed to evidence in the court brief that cases that miss iris did not live in the unit for several years. supervisor kim asked the appellant if he had any hard evidence that miss iris did not live in the unit. the respondent r appellant responded to some court evidence as well as living next door to the miss canada. in the end the supervisors voted 10-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the deny of the condo conversion. supervisor tapping be was the one disenting vote. and then finally at this week's board hearing, our own commissioner moore was recognized by supervisor kim and presented an award as a fellow on the institute of certified planners, and in recognition of hermanny

accomplishments -- [applause]. >> and in recognition of hermanny accomplishments providing invaluable services as a planning commissioner. supervisor peskin and ronen also participated in the congratulations. that concludes my comments. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. congratulations, commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: thank you very much. >> president hillis: any questions for mr. starr? >> clerk: commissioners, the acting director wanted me to read in the minutes for the board of appeals. apaelz at 653 28th street and the construction of a

single-family home. a discretionary review was filed by two neighbors and those hearings were held on june 7 and september 8 of last year. the commission took d.r. and added a condition that the lower two floors at the rear of the building be converted to an accessory dwelling unit once the new home was completed. three separate appellants filed appeals. the arguments made on appeal were very similar to those held in the discretionary review hearings, and most of the discuss revolved around the requirements to add an adu once the home was completed. regarding the ability to enforce the condition, the board ultimately voted unanimously to uphold all the appeals. commissioners, that'll place us under general public comment. 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 with respect to agenda item. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to comment will be when they reach the item in the meeting. we did have a couple of speaker cards. >> president hillis: and i'll read those, jeremy and georgia, but if others would like to speak, please lineup on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon, president hillis, commissioners. congratulation, commissioner moore. well deserved. couple things i'd like to mention. approximate regard to the matter discussed last night at the board of appeals and the adu, the builder requiring the building to be fully physical

before the adu was built, and this seems to be a procedural problem that the zoning department and planning department can solve so that adu housing can come on-line more rapidly having to wait for a full sequence of a cfc having to be issued on a new project before an adu that is planned for could actually be installed and come on-line as well. so something for you to consider. the other thing i'd like to bring up to you is i'm speaking on behalf of my favorite eccentric russian bath house down in the bayview-hunters point area on ennis. it sits surrounded by the proposed building -- [ audio difficulties ] >> president hillis: sorry

about that. >> last fall, when the environmental was before you, you heard a lot of presentation and concern from the community and the employees about their -- what the impact that the india basin development proposed by building might have and you asked that it be included in the environmental review, and the direction of the commission was quite clear. it was expected to be reheard in february and has been postponed and postponed again to july or maybe august and there seems to be no motion or action on the part of building or even an intent by building to include the needs of i bana in this discussion. they're talking about moving the affordable housing component off-site, which was just denied. there's new stuff coming out about the contamination of the site. it is all very concerning, and

enya has just asked me to come to the planning commission to keep this fresh in your mind because they're very concerned, and they want to see if this thing moves forward, that their concerns be met. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. paul. miss schuttish. >> good afternoon. congratulations, commissioner moore. i was the appellant for the demolition for 653 28th street, and my reasons was it was a demolition, and it was $45,000 over the numerical criteria. and the -- the idea of an adu in a nonexisting building. $45,000 over the existing number at the time the numerical criteria. i tried to think of a way to -- to understand what that meant. if you look at the current noe

valley pricing, it's about 1200 a square foot, so 45,000 is equivalent to 36 square feet. that is smaller than the master closet in the master bedroom of that project, which is 52 square feet. it's not an exact science thing, but it's just a way to think about it, the 45,000 over demolishing a house. now that was a house, and maybe we didn't really push that back in june before the adu issue came up. that was a house that could take an adu without being torn down. and it was a house that was sound and did not need to be demolished. here's some photos when the house was rent by the project sponsor. there's the living room -- may i have the overhead, please. there's the living room. there's the living room and dining room. there's the dining room. there's the kitchen. there's more of the kitchen.

there's the bath, with a nice tall shower. there's one bedroom, another view of it. there it is. and, you know, it's not decrepit, as it was described. here's the stairway, the entrance. it's a tunnel entrance house, so that means it's got a door into the garage. so the existing house could have had an adu that would be affordable. not a 1200 square foot adu, but an affordable adu. when i was getting ready for the hearing, i looked up the adu's. there's 159 -- approximately

159. there's five in rh 1. all of these are 234 existing buildings, and the appraisal, the first one was done on the 5th of january . it was right on the money, 1.63. nine days later, they got it 45,000 over. i'm not trying to make you feel guilty or castigate you, just think about this: is it worth demolishing a sound house that you could put an adu in, and you talked about the numbers that commissioner richards just talked about with a salary, does that all make sense, and i don't think so, but thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name's john garner. thank you for making the time to hear my point. my partner and i are small developers who focus on glg adu's within the envelopes of existing multifamily buildings. one of the biggest challenges we face is the slow pace of adu permitting and approval. it typically takes the city 12 months for final approval of adu's, the planning portion of this adu is typically about six

months. this processing delay has three major negative impacts on the city. my goal is to showcase the larger problem, but i'll use the project that we're doing at 1295 47th avenue to illustrate my point. this project aims to add four units to an existing eight unit building. show adu for th-- slow 5 dadu' delivers the following impacts. delays tax revenue to the city. once we complete 1295 47th avenue, we will sell the building to a long-term owner. if we had faster approvals, we could sell the building in november of 2018 instead of november 2019. they would get $50,000 of lost

tax revenue in the city. for this project, each month of delay costs me $15,000 in carry costs. these delays make money of my projects unprofitable. if we had faster approvals, we could develop a lot more adu's more quickly. make adu's done over the counter by appointments. the goal should be approving an adu in weeks, not months. once planning has approved it, we should allow all the different approvals to go over the counter, as well, which include dbi, eir, dpw and euc. they can typically take four to six weeks perapproval. also, i would say we'd like to have one point of contact for this entire process because right now we're dealing with six different approvals. this is six different organizations and they're all finger pointing and handing

docs back and forth. to me, you're the city and i'd like it if you guys treated me -- act like a single organization and treated me like a customer. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> todd david on behalf of the frisk housing action coalition. completely agree if we can speed up the way we can deliver adu's, we're going to get a lot more affordable by design housing in san francisco. that's not what i'm here to talk about. i'm here to talk about rena numbers. this at land use the other day what we were talking about earlier during the conversation on why it's taking long to get affordable housing into the mission, supervisor ronen said we're building 220% of market rate housing. and i said umm, well, that's interesting, because according to the abag's report, we're building 20% market rate

housing. and she broke out the old -- overhead, please -- the -- the old residential pipeline quarterly pipeline report that we talked about before that said that we're building 217% of affordable housing. so i -- so that was one discrepancy, which we've discussed in the past. the other thing that came up which i thought was very interesting is that in the pipeline report, it shows that we're building 80% of our moderate income housing. once again, the abag report shows that we're at 20%. i reached out to the planning staff, and there's an explanation that there's some data entry problems with the state, this and that. my only point is that whenever -- once again, i would argue that any time we as a

city are going to give data that differs from what the state's giving, there should be an explanation, written explanation. to say that on one data -- on one point, we're building 80% of above moderate housing, and the state is showing we're building 20%, that deserves an explanation. and also, like, do think that this is incumbent upon the planning department staff to inform supervisors that that 217% includes entitlements. and supervisor ronen and i had a conversation about entitlements, and she said, well that is the pipeline. i said well that's interesting. how many of those entitled units in the shipyard. when are those going to get built? i said people don't live in entitlements, they live in permanent housing. so i just think it's important for all of us to be talking the

same language when we're talking numbers, and we need explanations when numbers are different and in different locations. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we can move to the regular calendar. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that's place us on items 14-a, b, c, d, and d for case numbers 2007-0946 gpa-02. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm ed snyder, department staff.

before you are several actions associated with nodfications to the candlestick point hunters point shipyard phase two project. for this presentation i'm going to give you a broad overview of the background of the project and then narrow in on the actions that are before this commission. jose campos of the office of community investment and infrastructure will dig a little bit more deeper into the actual redevelopment plans and the land use. and then -- for now, sorry, of ginsler architects will provide a plan for the hunters point shipyard. as an orientation, we are again at the southeast most extents of the city. the project includes candlestick point. this was of course the previous location of the candlestick -- candlestick stadium. it's also the location of the state park, alice griffith

housing district. and then, on the most western side, it also included another parcel that's actually not included on the map before you that we refer to as the jamestown parcel. hunters point shipyard of course is the previous location of the naval shipyard. i want to give a quick background of sort of the structure of what's the governing structure behind it. these two projects are of course within two redevelopment project areas. the hunters point shipyard redevelopment project and its associated plan was established in 1997. it includes two phases. phase one is currently under construction, partially complete. and then, phase two has not begun its implementation. candlestick point is in with the bayview-hunters point redevelopment project area. that area was established in 2006, actually, in its current state, it was establish index

200 200 -- established in 2006. in 2010, of course the project, the candlestick point hunters point shipyard project was -- received its master entitlements. it has its two components in these two project redevelopment areas. that project is a part of its master approvals, included approvals up to 10,500 dwelling units, potentially up to 5 million square feet of office. that project looked at several different scenarios. a major retail center, about 330 acres of open space and other supporting uses throughout. the master approvals, the actions at the time included amendments to the respective two redevelopment plans to enable the projects. at that time, we also wanted to make sure that the documents that the planning department governs was aligned with the --

with these documents that ocii governed, and specifically by creating area plans for each of the two areas and also creating special use districts under the planning codes, that they all could align. we also created two design for development documents which we -- you've been looking at several of these. most recently, we've included them in d.a. projects. they were also include in redevelopment projects. and then the role of the planning commission, just very quickly, because this is under redevelopment jurisdiction, the role of the planning commission is essentially to approve any amendments to the special use districts or area plans. that is our jurisdiction. you are also required under state law to approve any redevelopment plan amendments -- excuse me, not approve, but to make findings of consistency with the general plan for these amendments. and then any amendments to the design for development documents are also -- also

require your approval perthe redevelopment plans. by point, the master developer is currently seeking some refinements to the project, making modifications to the projects. there are some land use changes that are governed under the redevelopment plans. i'm going to let jose campos of ocii staff go tlhrough those with you. on changes on the candlestick side, i mentioned the jamestown parcel. that's actually a parcel that was owned or is owned by the san francisco 49ers. that was originally a part of that j pro. since that time, i think there's been a mutual agreement amongst planning commission, ocii staff, five point, the master developer and the property owner that that land is actually probably better suited, that the planning department guide that redevelopment, so we're seeking to remove that parcel from the redevelopment plan and the associated s.u.d. and the associated area plan. on the hunters point shipyard side, the -- the proposed

modifications are more significant. five point has -- has engaged sir david aje to reenvision the project, and then, they have engaged ginsler architects to take that and turn it into a set of redevelopment requirements in the new design for development document, and that is before you for approval, today, as well. so just to summarize the approvals from you, commissioners, today, we are seeking approval of general plan amendments, specifically it's the candlestick side, just changing the boundaries, changing the boundaries to zone one of the redevelopment plan, and then changing of the boundaries of the related sub area plan, and then, the special use district. if the the hunters point shipyard side -- let me just go

back. so the redevelopment plan will also be amended, and we're asking for general findings from you on that and also we're just making minor changes to the candlestick design for you. it's simply making conforming changes, taking the jamestown parcel outline of that. on the hunders point shipyard side, there's no need to make any changes to the special use district. we are making changes to the plan that makes any mention of the previously proposed stadium for that site. there is some more significant changes to the layout of the actual area plan. jose campos and ben will go through those with you, but we're making conforming changes to the maps throughout that area plan, as well. and that -- that concludes my presentation. i just might mention the d for d approval motion, we sent out a revised draft motion for you that had an additional provision that would enable --

that you would enable the director to make any conforming changes to the document if we find that as we move forward through our approvals, other people looking at us want us to make more restrictive changes, but we would just be able to make more restrictive changes to that document without having to bring it back towards you, as well. that concludes my portion of the presentation. i will turn it over to jose campos to walk-through the redevelopment plans with you. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you, matt. good afternoon, commissioners. i will present the project background and highlights of the redevelopment plan amendments. the main impetus of the project's changes is with the 49ers stadium option gone, five point, in coordination with planning and ocii staff

reenvision an updated development plan on phase two of the shipyard, especially in the southern portion of the project area. in 2010, the former redevelopment agency and the developer entered into a development agreement for both the shipyard and candlestick point that called for a stadium on the shipyard plus approximately 3 million square feet of r and d office space. the new vision and the new development agreement which was approved by the commission on community investment and infrastructure last week removes the stadium and replaces it with a mix of uses already permitted under higher development caps in the existing redevelopment plan and studied in the project's 2010 environmental impact report. the rethink of the shipyard provides the opportunity to flush out the phase two project area which it creates a project of mixed use districted. the result is a greater diversity of land uses. the plan amendment would also

allow a potential shift of potential square footage from hunders point shipyard to candlestick point. the new development plan designed by london based architect sir david ajay permits the adaptive use of existing space in the shipyard, so it would require a shift in the street grid back to the time it was a shipyard, and an increase in the park and open space land. here are the hunters point phase two variance, considered and studied in 2010. the development agreement called for the stadium variance that you can see here. the new development agreement aligns more with the r and d variance that you can see in the lower right hand corner.

and here is the comparison between the 2010 proposed development on the shipyard and the to 18 proposal. please note the expansion of open space land around the project area's perimeter and at its core. the enhanced connectivity of the grid and the replacement of the stadium with a mixed use district on the right. but we can't adequately describe the proposed project changes without tieing them to the candlestick portion of the development agreement. this slide shows the 2010 development scheme under the hunters point shipyard phase two candlestick point disposition and development agreement. note the stadium and the shipyard south and the retail center and mixed use residential districts of candlestick point. and this is the development attached to the 2018 disposition and development agreement. here, you will note that the shipyard phase one development is on the hill top and the hillside. it's partially built out, and you'll see the new scheme for

the shipyard phase two, and candlestick point, which is largely unchanged. to understand how this works with square footages and the development program, this table presents to you the new development agreements development program for shipyard phase two and candlestick. note that the changes are on the far right column. you'll see an increase in 172 residential units. also note that the decrease that you see in -- in r and d office space under the cap allows for an increase in other commercial land use square footages that these are a mix of land uses below. there would also be an increase in parks and open space of 10.7 acres, but it's important to note that the increase in the dwelling units and at the bottom, the 71,000 additional commercial space is the result of a shift from entitlement

from phase one of the shipyard to phase two of the shipyard and candlestick point. now onto the plan amendments. the hunters point shipyard redevelopment plan was adopted in 1997. since even before that date, community members of the hunters point shipyard citizens advisory committee have held devoted monthly and often weekly community meetings to help guide the transformation of the shipyard and then later on candlestick point. so the bayview-hunters point, the separate one was adopted in 2006. in 2010, a new development agreement was approved with the shipyard's developer that covered the redevelopment of phase two of the shipyard and also zone one, otherwise known as candlestick point.

matt showed you this map before, and here is that map again where you can see the two different redevelopment project areas, how we are focusing on hunters point shipyard phase two in the darker red, and as well bayview-hunters point zone one. so the plan amendments to both of those project areas, i will attempt to present to you as highlights. with regards to the shipyard, the plan amendment would change the name of land use districts to match the updated vision. land use definitions would also be modified to match the new vision. this calls for more specific commercial land use categories, such as makers space, and a more diverse mix of land uses, including a hotel and different types of schools. the amendments would also clarify that sustainable private infrastructure such as

ecogrid infrastructure would be permitted. it includes total maximum square footages permitted under certain land use categories. these design limitations found in the plan would be adjusted by reducing the maximum square footage of r and d offices and there by increasing the square footages for retail and schools. under the d -- under the development agreement amendment, the maximum square footage of r and d office has been adjusted to reflect the maximum that would be allowed under the amended redevelopment plan. finally, r and d allocated to the shipyard currently could be transferred to candlestick point, subject to approval.

with regards to the bayview-hunters point redevelopment plan amendment, this would allow for the conversion of uses within candlestick point within certain commercial land use categories, again subject to ocii approval and not in exceedance of the plan's limitations. this plan would also be amended to allow that shift to candlestick, and finally, the plan amendment would shift the jamestown parcel located on jamestown out of zone one and into zone two of the plan. and here's the map showing in blue the jamestown parcel that will be removed from zone one in the project area and placed under planning department jurisdiction in zone two. all this to make the hunters point shipyard phase two a reality. over the last several months, planning department staff, and

ocii staff devoted many hours with the developer and architect a design for development document to provide the zoning for the phase two of the shipyard that would replace the 2010 design for development. so with that, i would like to pass the baton to ginsler to run us through the new d for d. >> thank you, jose. thank you, commissioners. good afternoon. my name is ben trenell. i'm with ginsler. we are the architect that helped five point and many others in the writing of this design for development document. what i'd like to share with you today is a little bit about the vision and master plan, and most importantly, the standards of this design for development. we started with looking at the history of this site. it's incredible. it's an awe inspiring history.

there are many things you can draw from. this top right of this aircraft image coming in to dock just shows you the scale of the site, and you see the people on the deck of the aircraft carrier, and this gave us one of the under pinning ideas of this project. the shipyard was a place that was built to build ships, and we want to honor that history and draw from that authenticity. there's this wonderful character and legacy there, but we also want to make it a place for people. so whereas it was built for ships, we want to make it human scale and human experience and integrate it into san francisco and the fabric of the city. this initial sketch of the master plan from david ajay highlights the use of integrated use districts and retaining the historic street grid from the navy which allows us to keep more of the existing

buildings, and those existing buildings are what really lend the authenticity and character to this site. you see on the top left the artist building, on the bottom right, some of the smaller landmark buildings and in between are these very large-scale buildings, which we find very, very exciting for a potential adaptive reuse, and the design for development document is written in such a way that the adaptive reuse of these structures are incentivized. on the top right is one of the most relevant. this is the philadelphia shipyard, which was repurposed to a headquarters for a large company. and on the bottom left is a former dry dock in germany that was redeveloped and repurposed with urban development around it. we also drew upon the various aspects of san francisco and its neighborhoods and the commonalities that we find where there's walkability and there's that pedestrian scale. san francisco's neighborhoods

are all woven from a different texture, and we want to draw out those different aspects of them and bring them to the shipyards, so when we go there, we can think of it as one of our favorite places in san francisco. we want it to feel when you go to the shipyard, you're a part of san francisco, but it's also something special that's been formed by that district, so this is the thinking that went into the d for d, and i'll get into the planning of the d for d itself. this is the overall plan that shows the district, the artist's building and the north shoreline district which is primarily residential type buildings to the north. this plan illustrates in a bit more detail some of the key aspects of the site. there's the green room in the center, which is an urban scale park with -- framed by large

buildings, the -- one of the existing buildings that you saw the photo of, and i'll show you it again later. new buildings around it. there's the water room, which is the old dry dock being repurposed as an urban plaza. what an incredible opportunity. how often do you get to repurpose a dry dock into a plaza. this is the pedestrian allay. it's double lined with trees, and the building's fronted. and then, there's the waterfront open space around the perimeter, and existing buildings interspersed throughout. one of the jurks at that positions we're looking for in the standards are those existing buildings and the new buildings next to them that are given additional environmental controls. this is an example from the d for d of the building height, and you can see the step down towards the perimeter of the

site. the d for d contains all of the elements you would expect to find. we drew upon pier 70 and mission rock and others and worked closely with ocii and planning commission staff to draw out exemplary controls from other d for ds, but we wanted to go beyond. we really challenged that notion of can you regulate and govern great design just through a set of controls, and we came upon this idea of a menu of options that can be worked through just based on the building daily, and they really fall into thee categories here. the idea of facade composition is that there will be general architectural interest every building, every design. the bulk and massing in the center is a way of giving interest to the skyline and in a larger scale. and then finally the third, the purple column had to do with building public realm

enhancements, creating a ground floor excavation that would cater to the human experience, with, for example, measures such as walking through the center of a building with a public access promenade in the center of a building, and we worked on these ideas with planning. this is one of the things i'd like to show to illustrate the controls. this is block 40, what we'd categorize as a large commercial office building, based on that menu of controls, and you can see on the right the typical development controls, height and ground floor activation and whatnot. and then based on the menu, going through, choosing two facade composition strategies, one bulk and massing, etcetera, you get this on the right of how that can be broken-down in scale and texture and the potential for ground floor activation and transparency, and the potential for pedestrian pass through on the ground floor. this is an example of the kind of architectural testing.

[please stand by for captioner switch]

... endure for a long time and provide a great new san francisco neighborhood that is for peoples, but inspired by the ships that were there.

thank you. >> thank you very much. is that it? we'll open up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. >> good afternoon, president hill. and fellow commissioners. commissioner, congratulations on the prestigious award. you make us proud. i'm here, i was the former chair of the area. i chaired the land use and planning transportation. san francisco planning commission. for more than 18 years.

the bay boou hunters point rallied around getting guidance and the san francisco development agency. we envisioned that candlestick park which was under the bay view project area, envisioned to be in line. doing the land disposition development agreement, we approved that. so what you'll hear today is the unification of the vision we have, it's a great day for the people of bay view hunters point. it's a great day for san francisco. the bay view hunters point development plan, you have that, it's one of the jewel of planning. on the 100 year anniversary, you displayed that.

all the components are in the plan and i want you to please revisit the plan, because we're going to be here to look it and make sure you stay true. your approval of this today is the first in a long line of the vision we have for bay view hunters point and i want to take the time to congratulate on that point for working tirelessly for decades. in terms of business opportunity, in terms of hiring and in terms of jobs. there is no other project in the san francisco that is doing that. again, it's a great day and we

know that you're going to approve that because you're all great people. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am reverend caroline scott, urban missions in san francisco and started working as a coordinator under our former mayor. i served the city and county of san francisco and have lived in hunters point bayview through the 3040s and 50s. we lived and went to school there, family. we have just had the opportunity to enjoy this city to help build the city, and be a part of the life of the city. and creating life in the city.

i approve and i'm asking that you would join us in approving phase 2. which will give us, as linda said, the great opportunities, housing, the jobs, the businesses, that can come forth out of this. and, yes, there has been a mountain of despair with the toxic waste. there is still concern. i had a mother who suffered miscarriag miscarriages. i had ten miscarriages, lost six boys, four girls. so i'm concerned about that, but i'm also looking at the opportunity and the hope that this has for the community and the city. and out of a mountain of despair is a stone of hope and that hope is this redevelopment.

nd