picking up on what commissioner richard said to see minum maximum limits on adu. starting at 1200 square feet seems very high to me particularly when it deals with existing buildings. i like to see standards derived from current practice and minimums as well as maximums. livability standards, light and air as expressed by one of the speakers and that is something i mentioned last week. with the guidelines in flux, i am pointing out that we do not currently have residential guidelines that are fully embracing adu as a concept of

stand-alone units. it would be very helpful and the supervisor has expressed support for it to develop more targeted guidelines that deal specifically with adus. at this moment we see a few diagrams hear but they do not fully embrace the real issues. i still have problems with no reference to specific codes which would apply or how they would need to be modified in order to make these units in the new adu vernacular code client, there are still a few loo loophs in the way it's written and not having the updated version in front of us makes it a little bit more difficult to follow all of the justments that you have made throughout the text which i assume there are a few.

last time we heard about the eviction loophole and than addressed and it is on page 7 and was addressed by quite a few people. -- i brought the - it up last weib and i have not heard anybody speak to it. there is architectural questions that i have that deal with dormers on garages to add more light to adus that are done in garages. that itself sounds like an idea just depends on which neighborhood you are doing it in.

sorry for laughing. if the neighborhood has flat roofs and then all of the sudden the garage pops up, this is not exactly what we want to do. there is a little tuning. there is the question not all neighborhoods are h1, h2, and h3. neighborhoods in the flat lands we do have quite a few neighborhoods in topography. when you put neighborhood expansion into the area there are a few things to think about. just putting those out as additional thoughts for you to take into consideration and i think an additional round of slightly more physical guidelines would be helpful and also raise a great, would help alleviate anxieties about what the real impact is on adjoining neighbors.

in principle, i think we are moving in if right direction and we just need a little bit more detail, and i would like to see the latest version of the work itself. >> president hillis: commission. >> commissioner richards: one question i have a 25 by 100 lot and my house covers, the structure covers the first 50 feet, and i want to put an adu popout on and i want to go beyond the -- yard. would a variance hearing need to be held? >> marcel, department staff. sorry it's really allowed and hard for us t us to hear. >> if i had an ad.currently undf

state law which is ordinance 95-72 which we implemented last year it allows an existing single family home to add accessory dwelling unit permission in the buildable lot. it would have to be within the buildable lot not within the rear yard. within our current language it requires an existing building or structure, so it would have to be an existing garage structure or other type of cottage or shed. >> under the new legislation proposed? >> i do believe it's still within the buildable area of the lot. yep. >> correct.

>> would not be ministerial though. if it's expansion of an existing building, it would have to do notification except for those little fill-ins. >> can't hear you very well. >> if it is expanding the building notification is required and it would not be ministerial for the single family homes subject to state law only for the light expansions under canty lever rooms. you would not need it. >> i would like to move to approve the legislation with striking issue number one. i would like number two, number

three, number four, number five, number six, number seven, and number eight. >> what about adu in new construction where there has not been demolition? >> i think that is a conversation for another day and i trust that the supervisor's off is coming back with another conversation. >> president hillis: i would be supportive -- if the issue is about demolition, i get it, let's hold off and see where the definition goes, but we have a housing crisis now i don't want to wait if we have the opportunity to build new units tomorrow in a building that hasn't demos an existing home, why not. >> i think our office would

prefer to wait -- we understand that there is a crisis. [indiscernible] i think that is our preference at this time from our office. thank you. >> so just for clarify commissioner richards you were working off of this sheet. >> yes. >> if staff could clarify that the draft resolution is consistent with commissioner richard's motion. >> for the resolution the only item that would be crossed out would be number one because that is related to adu in new construction. >> very good thank you. >> i would add we would recommend that the land use committee and board consider a size limit on the adu whether

it's square footage or percent of the existing structure so that it's still accessory, but i'm not sure that we can come up with one now hear. >> was there a second in. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> is it possible that some of the comments made by the commission could be added for conversation. it gets complicated to put them into a motion. i see staff writing vigorously. could you confirm our comments are being passed on to the board of supervisors? >> sure. >> at this moment we are basically working with an unfinished document and trusting that what you are saying to us is being considered, however at the same time we would like to at least have our suggestions be heard and considered and i'm speaking about guidelines, i'm

speaking about particular attention to aspects i spoke about including others, so we ie are just flattening our approval, i do not feel we are properly being heard. >> president hillis: we do have an ordinance before us that we are commenting on. i think we should have adu in new construction because is that a comment you wish them to take? >> we have an ordinance in front of us, but we do not have in front of us what we are approving. anybody can stand in front of us to say anything and i do trust because the supervisor will see that is accurate. >> president hillis: i disagree with some of the comments like in four adus in new construction so to blanket say let's include our comments is tough.

we need to vote because we may disagree on things in places. >> i made specific comments and they will probably be able to be transcribed from the record. i can write them down but i don't think i need to do that. >> president hillis: it should be all in the motion. >> so we struck number one. commissioner richards motion recommends no adus in new construction and i disagree with that -- i think it's tough to say take our general comments into consideration when our comments may disagree. if you have specific comments you want to add to that, i think now is the time to do that and

include it in the ordinance so that we can vote on them and they can move forward with those comments. >> i will send my comments to the supervisors on my own. >> president hillis: okay. if there are comments you want to make now. >> minimum and maximum size of units, livability standards that are equal to all other units related to light and air, code compliance and code references as they deal with other life, safety, and quality of life units and, i brought up one example. >> president hillis: do adu have to comply with the code light and air, they have to comply with the existing code so it's in the law.

>> speaker 2: i do think for it to be enforceable legislation the references have to be there. >> president hillis: but this is modifying the code because the code exists. if you are going to build a bedroom in adu it has to have expoe hour that meets the existing code. >> on the code we are going from 15 feet to 9 feet, so we are changing the coat. >> and from corridor of 8 feet to 5 feet. 3 feet corridor. i disagree. >> we are not suggesting that the corridor bereduced it's only when -- to account for bicycle code compliance. we are not changing code

corridor regress corridor for the project. the corridor requires a five foot corridor as the minimum access for bicycle parking room, so this would allow a three foot corridor that already exists to count for compliance. >> on a new popout that we are going to creates a adu, you have to meet the planning code definitions for exposure. >> correct otherwise all building codes, and things of that nature. >> i talked about the issue of flat garages having dormers in an otherwise flat roof neighborhood. i think those are things that need to be thought about. >> the design guidelines that we

have already would apply for those dormers, so we would still apply our design guidelines to shape the dormers. >> dormers are dormers and there are no shape to the dormers. >> dormers are not going to be applicable to flat roofs. >> sorry this is perhaps semantics. i am sitting hear reading dormers so anybody wants to build an adu but has a flat roof and base wants to build dormersn build dormers. i am nitpicking. perhaps you could change the word dormer. >>s if also for stand alone

garages and those are usually in the back and not facing the street. >> dormers have a specific in the code already. it would need to be an existing sloped roo roof. >> if you wante wanted you coula top hat on there. >> that would be an expansion. >> president hillis: i think the issue of unit size commissioner richards motion has a recommendation to include a maximum unit size although i don't think we specified a maximum unit size, there was one on new construction, but not on existing buildings, another there may be one in the existing

code. >> there is not in the past staff has recommended against it because all of our adu, none of them have been more than 1100 and average size is about 650 and the reason that staff recommends to not prevent two or three bedroom adus that could potentially have a family or roommates so that has been the discussion in the past. >> okay. >> president hillis: any other comments. >> i would still like to recommend more specific guidelines to the adus and like to recommend that we have to eviction history a part of this legislation and i also believe that it's consideration to topography and special side

conditions need to be taken into consideration so something has to give more guidance to it is the commission i am taking. >> commissioner richards: doesnk at the context and see whether it fits in? okay. we have an adu handbook that existing in the building develop and beyond that design guidelines would apply. >> that is correct. >> president hillis: jonas we have a motion and a second. >> clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution approving this lanking code amendment with modifications as submitted in the draft resolution by staff

eliminating item one and recommending to the board of supervisors that the adu or an adu size limit be considered for the unit to remain accessory. on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes 5-1 can commissioner moore voting against. >> can i revise my motion? >> clerk: we would need to -- >> would you call it again, please. >> clerk: commissioner moore has a motion to rescind the previous. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to rescind the previous. [roll call]

that motion passes unanimously 5-0. is there an alternate motion. >> president hillis: same motion. >> clerk: on the motion to approve the planning code amendment eliminating modification number one submitted by staff in the draft resolution as well as recommending to the board of supervisors that the adu size that they consider an adu size limit for it to remain accessory on that motion. [roll call] so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 5-0. that places us on 2018

2018-005553pca. [. [reading] ing amendment] >> gino is a planning technician and provide -- reworked for thef san paulo. he has a bachelor's degree in urban studies and plans from san francisco state. >> good afternoon. the item before you is an amendment to the planning cold that would allow catering as accessory to restaurants under certain conditions. i will provide a brief overview after superviso safai.

>> president hillis: welcome. >> good afternoon. looks like you have a good agenda today. a lot of fun stuff. i am very excited to be hear and this is a nice piece of legislation not because i'm proposing it but because i think in the context of retail seeing a major competition from the internet and retail businesses relieving significant competition from all walks of our economy we are trying to be creative in our proposal to think about existing limited-use restaurants and how they utilize all their space and manage it in an effective way. i had the pleasure of meeting the owner of la victoria bakery a few years ago.

they have a history of using their space for multiuses. in this case we are talking about for use for catering. this dates back to the 60s and they did a significant amount of catering for the democratic convention in the late '60s and that tradition carried on for years and years. i had the good fortune of meeting the owner of the bakery. he has been in front of you before. the conversation started there and then we expanded it, and we thought how can we utilize these spaces that get used for a limited amount of time, often in bakeries or cafés for maybe a

small portion of the day in the morning and then sit dormant. [ please stand by] as often as you all probably know there conflicting messages, so the department of public health had one perspective as it pertains to perspective use and planning department had another.

we believe it is something that will have wide application in san francisco and believe will be utilized broadly. i'm happy to answer any questions.

thank you for your consideration and thank you for the land-use team and planning department team for working with us on this. >> thank you. we will take public comments. will you stick around? >> yeah, sure. >> i will say a few words from the perspective of the department and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you and you should very much. >> i will quickly finish my presentation. i will briefly go over the background again. as it currently stands, it is not permitted in a neighborhood district unless it is in excess are used to another business. in order to be a access or use tech a catering use must provide it's products for the retail sale at the same location where the catering takes place. this ordinance would allow catering and commercial districts as an accessory use it to a limited restaurant without that retail requirement, under the following to watch our conditions. one, the catering use does not operate more than 72% of a total

time within a limited restaurant hours and operations on any given day, and two, the catering use does not distribute or deliver individual meals to customers directly from the subject line, other by its own means or third-party delivery service. the department recognizes the lack of apple commissariat kitchen spaces in the city which leads catering -- catering businesses. further, the limitations proposed on accessory casing uses in this ordinance will ensure an act of commercial use will remain the principal use where the accessory catering would take place. the department's recommendation is for approval with modifications. our one recommendation is to amend the ordinance of the new condition is applied not only commercial districts but citywide. limited restaurants or, regardless of the zoning district would be allowed to

have accessory catering uses. this would bring consistency citywide in applying the new provision. thank you commissioners. this concludes my presentation and we are available for questioning us while. >> thank you very much. we will open this up for public comment. any public comment? mr papadopoulos? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the mission economic development agency. so we have a couple questions about this, to be honest we took a quick look at it as it popped up. he came on our radar. for example,, in adding the best accessory, adding catering use to mission street, which we are doing right now, that was prescribed process as part of a larger plan, search of some evaluation of what we thought the impacts where and how it would work. is the core door correctly that is a question it raises for us

and the rest of the city. whether everyone in all of those core doors are the right place to move one overriding. i think that, you know, we often compare and we had a lot of discussions. the differences between areas and how they maybe don't need the same sense of guidelines. in fact, they are sent out -- set of prescriptions on each of those streets is evolving with a fair amount of difference to them. so i think that that is the biggest overall issue that we had at this point. we think it is worth discussing and thinking about. especially because when we look at, you know, we have a lot of catering going on, for example, on mission street as an example already. but obviously it is a slightly different format. you know, those folks have to sell on-site with the same product line as i understand. this might open a different scenario where you have something, a different product line with someone who is leasing

space. they might just have a different set of impacts in terms of a separate commercial operation operating out of their. it would be different if it was the same mom and pop shop operating a restaurant. and we also have a separate product line which would you in a catering fashion. we have some sort of separate whole business operating out of there but it is really one entity. those are questions we wanted to raise today. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? welcome. >> thank you very much. my name is damien. i own it a baked -- bakery in the district. the reason this all came up was because, as you know, is very hard to find catering space for a small growing company who is trying to, you know, get a foothold in the market and be able to compete with larger companies, and we found in our

infinite wisdom to help these young entrepreneurs out. we still agree with this pick we think it's a great legislation with the way it's moving forward. something that should be considered, if we start limiting the type of person who can rent a kitchen, let's say, you will probably run into some issues, because the reason this is happening is there isn't any space. in addition, the people who do rent spaces right now, from ranging from the local mom and pop to the very large restaurant, it doesn't matter. land lords are pushing the rents up through the roof regardless. if it if you don't think it's an issue now, weighed a few years for it to become a much more bigger issue, simply because there is no restrictions that people can charge a commercial tenant. this makes it even more complicated for a small person

trying to get into the market. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing don, we will close public comment. >> thank you to supervisors and all the staff involved. i am seeing this as a really good tool that will enable loc local, sometimes multigenerational family owned businesses the tools to succeed and work out where they are already established and be left susceptible to any displacing or rent increases or what not. >> commissioner johnson? >> i want to echo those comments and say earlier today i spoke about the issue of nonprofit displacement. the same thing we are seeing happen to nonprofits we are see -- seeing happen to small businesses. everyone needs to get creative. i love this idea of having a new space where folks who want to enter the cottage industry, the cottage food industry have several friends who are trying

to move and they often have to go to richmond or further out to find space. the ability to do that in the city, to get mental word by established restaurants is really exciting. and i want kudos to the supervisor for seeing this small case and seeing the larger context for the city and also to the planning department for seeing that this is an opportunity that we can support citywide. >> thanks. >> thank you. i also wanted to thank the supervisors very much for the thoughtfulness that was put into this into bringing this forward. i just wanted to say too, to mr papadopoulos, when i worked there, i actually had a client who needed this. one of the most successful clients, in fact. he got busted for using someone's kitchen when it wasn't allowed.

without outing who that was. i think that that, you know, actually came up over and over and over again. so, you know, this is why it was created to begin with, is to have access to a commercial kitchen. they are expensive. and there is a lot of regulation that is involved. into putting one together. and so, for immigrants, for people who are starting out, they may not have the technical know-how. of the ability to access something that is already done for a fraction of the price, can make the difference between making it as a business and not. i think this is really great. it's like having a roommate for your business which is, you know, exactly what we need to be doing. i am grateful that you are doing it and thinking outside the box and i think that this will help other businesses, immigrant businesses in particular and businesses owned by women. thank you so much and i totally

am supportive of desk. >> is that a motion? >> yes, i move that we approve this. >> with that, are you ok with staff recommendations to up likely. >> yes. >> we want to make it citywide and the only question i have is this is a great idea and has a lot of applicability given the dynamics. things are changing. the only thing i would ask is had this been vetted with staff, and all other neighborhood commercial districts. we know that many of them are specific rules and had not been vetted with them. >> i think once you all put your final recommendations on we will spend more time speaking with other supervisors and looking deeper into the application based on the recommendations. that is a good point. >> thank you. >> just an explanation of the

citywide. the ordinance draft applies to a neighborhood commercial districts. they had intended to be our most sensitive neighborhood controlled wise. we have a lot more controls. it is opening up citywide and it is not as impactful as opening it up to neighborhood commercial districts. it is providing consistency and allowing these districts cap things like that. >> could you say that last part one more time? i think i missed the meeting. >> it is allowing it to happen in more intensive districts then and see districts. like downtown at eastern neighborhood districts. the ordinance, as currently drafted applies to all neighborhood commercial districts already. >> expanding it citywide would mean other places that allow restaurant uses could also do this as an accelerate use again makes sense. >> i want to be clear, we specifically did not call out restaurants in this? cafés and bakeries?

it is a distinction. and i have subsequently had the golden gate restaurant association reach out and asked why did you limit it to limited restaurants? working with staff, we did not want to encourage restaurants to decrease their hours and encourage them to do more of this. however, what we got back from the restaurant association is they are not concerned about that. it would be less of an incentive and helpful for them to each we. the point i didn't make i was trying to make and commissioners did hit on, it is good for the businesses, the immigrants, you know, the businesses that are struggling, female owned, but it is also about protecting businesses. that's why i call out victoria bakery. 's been there for decades and under tremendous pressure. if you down the building

that you are in, rents are consistently rising and we don't have rent control for small businesses. the pressure that they are under in the economy, they are feeling displacement. this allows them to be creative to expand their economic power. that is also the other point i really didn't know. you all hit on it. that was also a very important point. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your support. >> to wipe your legislation. we have a motion and a second. who seconded it? >> i did. >> on that motion, we approve this matter with staff notification. the motion passes unanimously. 6-0. commissioners, item 11. for the mixed-use project

informational presentation, as well as initiation of general plan amendments. >> good afternoon commissioners. before today, we are going to have a presentation on the union basin mixed-use project. we are, this of course, is a development agreement project. in about a month, you will have several approvals for this project or we will be asking for several approvals on this project. the first being a development agreement. we are also putting before you legislation to create a special use districts that would map the development agreement. we would be asking you to approve a design, standards and guidelines document, which would act as a visioning document for the project, along with a set of blueprints on how to implement the project. finally we will be asking for a plan amendments regarding the project, and we are asking you to initiate this amendments.

as you know, the planning commission is required to initiate general plan amendments. i am going to give some broad context for this project. we will hear from a company you will go over the high points of what we will be expecting in the development agreements. the project sponsor will be providing background on the project itself and how they developed their program. finally we will be providing an overview of the design guidelines, design standards and guidelines document which will act to the blueprint for the project. quickly, the general plan amendments. i will describe them very, very broadly. this is a mixed-use project. this is an area that had been zoned for light industrial.

therefore there are several places within the general plan that refers to it as light industrial in that bayview hunter's point area plan. and the commerce industry plan. we would want to manage those maps and amend those policies. we are looking to amend the height map within the urban design element so it is consistent with what we are proposing. than the open space element, there is a reference to the union basing plan which was actually something we had worked on about six years ago that was never officially adopted. we are appropriately having that scrapped. just very quickly to provide broad context, you heard several presentations on the southern bayfront strategy. this is essentially a framework by which the city is looking at a lot of these large-scale development projects, along the bayfront. and thinking about how what kinds of public benefits we

could ask for them. these benefits, we are looking at this holistically. public benefits range from affordable housing and transportation improvements and open space. and then to focus in on india basin and the greater india basin area, the one thing that this development will focus on its open space. and in the greater indian basin area is what we are envisioning is a series of open spaces from different jurisdictions and different developments that will start and work its way down towards the existing power plant, through a couple of properties. we'll be talking about one today which will have a very heavy open space component and then linking into the shipyard's open space which you took actions on about a month ago. and then focusing on the

property we will be talking about today. it is the building proposal. as you can see, it is vacant land. the project consists of roughly 38 acres that includes both billed properties and private parcels. it includes public works paper streets and rights-of-way, and recreation and park properties. their property rings around the site. the development agreement will be looking to make improvements to all of these. with that i will turn it over to someone else to talk about the development group. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm here to provide a brief description of the key public benefits for this project. i only want to take a couple minutes at this time. i will try to hit the highlights

and be available for questions. i will be back at the next hearing with a more comprehensive overview of the development agreement. as matt mentioned cactus is one of the projects we identified. we use that framework to guide the benefits for negotiations. while this project will achieve all of the targets in that framework, i want to focus today on housing and open space. )-right-parenthesis mary expo -- focus is to... this affordable housing plan has been designated, or i'm sorry, designed to facilitate development of 25% of all residential units built within the project site. the developer may satisfy the foregoing obligations through a combination of the following options.

in addition, that affordable housing plan establishes maximum affordability levels and inclusionary units. at each of the milestones described above, and upon full buildout of the project site, the rate at which rental units are offered must not exceed on average a rate that would be affordable to households earning 110% of ami at the rate at which for-sale units are offered must notch doors must not exceed an average which be affordable to households earning 120% of ami. all fees generated would be applied to affordable housing projects to be constructed in the bayview neighborhoods. training to open space, the developer proposes a mixed-use development of the project site

which would include a new publicly accessible network of improved parkland and open space inc. through a mixed-use urban village. the full buildout would include a total of 15.5 acres of publicly accessible parks, clauses, site trails and pedestrian pathways. it will be comprised of improvements to the existing 6-acre open space as well as 6 acres of private land that will be developed into what is identified as the big green. this would be dedicated to the southeast waterfront area. once completed the spaces would connect nearly 1.5 miles of continuous waterfront park to the north and continuing through properties at shoreline park and eventually terminating the shipyard's northside park. the project sponsor has aro -- also committed to cfd which would yield $1.5 million annually. it would provide enhanced maintenance to the red park open parks.

as i mentioned, there is a detailed description of the entire package of the approval hearings. i will wrap this up here and be available if you have any questions. thank you. not good afternoon. my name is courtney. i am the senior project manager for the basin project. we are excited to be before you again today. as you can see in the map on the screen, our project boundary encompasses three recreation and parks. one of rich -- which we are designing the shoreline band around our property. inch watch what we partnered with our ppe to design and title so they would up -- be able to eligible -- be eligible for future funding. the project we are discussing as matt mentioned is focusing on the red blue land on the map.

the generally underdeveloped rights-of-way and the shoreline band. over the past four years we have met with numerous community groups and in india basin to craft and refine this plan we have held over 20 workshops and found 100 small groups and one-on-one meetings with community members. we started with the work that the basin neighborhood association dead on their community vision. they crafted a plan that was focusing on creating a mixed-use complete neighborhood with a large park connecting the private land with the public

shoreline band. our resulting bad questioned the development along the avenue and steps down towards the bay allowing for a more nuanced a street grid and the ability to dedicate over 5 acres of land to recreation and parks departments for new and redeveloped 12-acre public arthur does public acre parks. provides more open space in both the existing zoning which you can see on the left and the plan. the design of our project was born out of five key goals. a project aims to add a wide range of public services, retail businesses, and recreation options that the indian basin is lacking. we also want to integrate a dynamic open-space system interweaving parks, plazas and gathering spaces, with an extensive pedestrian and bicycle network. this helps to create a human

scale village that emphasizes form, size, texture, portion and articulation of artistic elements. the sight currently has unique hydrology and habitat conditions representing an extensive area. we have the opportunity to enhance and preserve this robust ecology all while growing a legacy of stewardship. one of the key public benefits as and mentions is the formation of an facilities district that will provide maintenance and operations above and behind the city's standard for all public streets and open spaces. the project also has robust strategies for water, energy, waste, ecology, adaptation and resilience. i will turn it over to angela with som to briefly discuss our design frameworks and drivers and how the design standards and guidelines will control the site. >> thank you. in fact, i ask folks who are

standing in front of the door to find a seat. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. and from the design team. is a pleasure to be here today to be able to provide you with an information overview of this very exciting project and answer any questions that you may have. our vision for india basin is to create a new model of a vibrant, diapers san francisco neighborhood that can meet the national does not natural realm and edge debate softly with resilient ecologically based open spaces. division plan is based on a set of principles that will respond to the location and environmental concerns -- condition such as direction of

prevailing wind, and orientation in order to create the most hospitable and humane place for people. additionally, providing a rich, fine-grained and diverse network of paths, trails and streets to connect the entire surrounding neighborhood to the bay and open spaces, as well as as well as strengthen connectivity parallel to ennis. when complete, deep we believe that the india basin will be a wonderful new addition of the southwest waterfront. it will be characterized by an incredibly rich and diverse array of public spaces that will allow residents and neighbors to look socially at urban and natural developments including a public market that is basically a social hub for the community

that can grow and expand as the community grows. creating a place and a space that has supported retail to make use of the transit to be easier and more accessible and enjoyable. to create assault on a strong sense of conductivity to the bay by providing view corridors from ennis to the bay. places for quiet enjoyment of the shoreline, pedestrian paths, as response to the topography by connecting and extending in the language of stairs that assent to the hills across ennis down to the bay. places to gather cap including the town triangle, shared streets or pedestrian prioritizes, public perched seats, shoreline wetlands and to support the ecology of when the

bay meets the land. the implementation of this plan will be governed by a series of documents including the su d., ca and... it is a design guideline and a standard. specific to the design quality of the place, we created a rigourous toddler volume design standard which can be seen here. and this document is structured with the intent and requirements. the first two chapters capture and provide organization for the framework to help future designers understand goal and intent. that individual chapter is regulating public realm, sustainability, land use, urban form, architecture, sinus -- signage and way signing. the framework depicts the principle of organizing systems

for the site access and circulation and place making. the public realm, chapter, has taught us subsections that about dimensions materiality and specific materials for services for furnishings. the public realm and open space as typically covered in... and intent on the other side. we have specific guidelines and standards that guide the diverse use of the public spaces. the materials that are regulated here are to be authentic to the place, as well as the plant species. the land use is mostly residential, and the land use supports a mix use from a quiet residential community towards the barry from ennis and towards

the bay. the land use on the frontage also governs and gets priority from an active frontage on the street. we have a series of land-use tables that clearly states that was permitted -- what is permitted and not permitted an urban form that talks about height, scale of the building. within the urban form, there are regulations that talk about how to break the mask, and the architecture section includes the intent and tools to guide design so we can enforce the public realm and urban foreign concepts. the architecture section also provides a debate -- the base, the body of the building as well as the top to encourage transparency. with that i will pass it to ma matt.

>> thank you. again, the action before you is to initiate planning at general plan amendments. the one thing i forgot to mention, on top of initiating those amendments we are asking you to schedule a hearing for approval on or after july 26 for all of the actions that we mentioned. that concludes our presentation. we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> we will hear public comments on this item. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am the media chair of a benign and the base in a neighborhood association. i wanted to let you know that for the past over four years we've been very much involved in the planning with the developers on this. i think it's a very smart plan. they have loosened and given us their feedback, as well as taking into consideration and making changes to reflect our

input. i'm very pleased to see this. i'm also a homeowner of over 20 years in the immediate neighborhood and i think this is a smart move for all of us in the city as we are looking to fulfil additional housing needs while protecting what we have there is just an amazing open space and waterfront parcel, which will be protected and enhanced under this plan. i urge you to come out to take a look if you haven't been out there yourself. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for all your work. >> good afternoon commissioners. we have not formerly reviewed the project but we will do so in the next month and a half. but, you know, i am excited to see this as well as a number of projects that have come through the pipeline. thinking about what is going on over the entire surface and waterfront, there was one slide that was up there but we now have five, one gotten a bit dicey, major development

projects that are in isolation and incredibly complicated and layer on the fact that they have to be time together with the number of different city departments. it is not easy. i think making sure that the communication happens and it is very critical and to a certain extent the actual development itself. we are familiar with all of the grips. we will always encourage them to do that. but taking it from a holistic perspective is really important. one last thing, we had an architecture group from australia come this morning and they specialize in waterfront development and i remember sitting with my roommate outside a giants game drinking a beer one time and we are looking at parking lots. there is so much underutilized space that we can use pick so many community benefits and a real opportunity for people to live and provide homes for people to live. this is a new part of san francisco that is not full cap

compared to how people -- what people say. thank you. >> thank you. mr o'reilly? >> good afternoon commissioners. i am amazed that after the extensive discussions of the topic of job, housing and balance in the centrosome upland, many hours were spent. nobody has raised this question for this project. and of course, the whole bayshore group of projects, a huge amount of development, both residential and commercial. this is the most important question for them all. the bay project is dramatically short because of this tremendous and ballast storage and balance. this tremendous composure and -- component. the giants project, mission rock is significy