and door into the light well. >> i don't see that. the living room borders the hallway and the living room borders the outside wall that is it. >> towards the street. from the living room on the ground floor? >> i thought the same thing. it looked like a nested living room. there is a window and door. >> i think from general ventilation i think you need more to have a fully functioning room. for quality of the unit, i think, it is something i would question. if we are talking about adu our responsible to deliver adu with a degree of livable is as important as not asking that question. i have great difficulties with taking the plan as a plan for an

expanded family use, and it looks really to me more like a dormitory and number of bedrooms somehow defeats the idea this is the family that has three children because i don't see or is expecting a fourth child. i do not see provisions for the core of the family other than the inlaws to function properly. i am at this moment very troubled by how this project is presented, and i presently at this moment cannot support it. >> so i have to say that i don't quite agree, commissioner, i don't see what you see. i am wondering if, you know, it is sort of pushing my butt tons

sometimes to have the expectations what a family is and how the family lives in terms of use of space because i think that is based on different cultural norms, you know. my family has six adults and kid and dog. you know, we use the space differently. i don't see that it is necessarily our jurisdiction to dictate on how that happens. paymentat the same time i remember the project in monticello, i want to make sure we are doing what we can to prevent those issues. i am looking at the floor plans, and i see a family living here with seven adults and three kids. i think that when you have older parents, which live with me,

there are certain requirements of privacy between like the couple and the family and the older folks that require separate bathrooms, and so i am not seeing what you see in that respect. i do have concerns over the design of the adu and i would like that to be better quality adu. i would like to make sure that we are adding to the housing stock in a way that is meaningful, but as far as the six bedrooms with, you know, the bathrooms add attached to the bedrooms, i am actually okay with that. i think if i had a family with my parents and my partners' par rents living with us, that is what we would need. there are some things i would do to this design. the quality of the adu, the light and access to that, and

then also i think the deck on the third floor is a little bit excessive. i don't know that you need that. do you need that for, you know, open space? i don't think so? >> this project can obtain the space in the rear yard. that is excessive. that might mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbors. other than that i am okay with this with the tweaks to the design. >> commissioner kopppel. >> i am leaning to wards supporting this. i don't have a problem with the bedrooms. the number of bathrooms is what stuck out with me, and i understand what we are trying to avoid by having this become a too many people dormitory. this is rh1. they can't add second unit which

is what we would normally suggest or look at. they are utilizing the adu. i want to see what you think and want to see, i am leaning towards supporting it. >> commissioner moore. >> i am not opposed to such porting an -- supporting an enlarged family. the plans resemble a story how these people live. aside from the adu not working at the moment, i object to a submittal. we have to have sufficient information to understand the project. this project is very scarce if not even to lower the standards we normally get. i wouldn't be asking the questions if this was properly thought through and properly documented. for that reason at this moment while i am attending to support

the idea of the expanded family. i need to see the adu redesign that works. i want to see that fully drawn out and fully documented. >> commissioner fong. >> it is a big family. when he goes to the movies he gets a good discount with the number of people there. i think if you look at the hch group, bathrooms, everyone has to get to school the same time. you suffer the same problems. i think we all and rightfully show should have it up and watch out for any kind of abuse whether it is group housing or air bnbs. i have in other situations i

don't sense it in this particular one. it is 40 feet. not going up crazy high. i feel for the neighbors and entertain some changes regulated to the deck or squishing in as we normally do to give light to neighbors. i see it as part of the squish of san francisco and wanting to keeps those in san francisco in the city. i understand for the neighbors, this is how the city is changing. we have seen other cases where people are much more aggressive as far as going much higher and pressing the boundaries. i understand that and i am sensitive to that. >> could i ask the sponsor or the architect. did the architect leave? we are massing how this fits to

the neighborhood, less on what is inside the building. people can use rooms differently. we don't necessarily get into that detail and sometimes we do and it raises concern about air bnb or not using as a residence. it is a large residence with a lot of people living there with a lot of bedrooms. the massing works in the front. it goes longer than most on the block. there is a neighbor that bumps out, too. two things i would support. there are two third floor decks. the one in the front troubles me the most it is a typical to have that on the street level. i would support eliminating that. you access the adu down the front hallway covered at the front then you go to the living room. there is a stair to the left going upstairs. we would eliminate that.

the other staircase goes to the garage which is fine from the main residence. there is that other stair down. i think we all raise the issue your living room there is a little odd in that there is a door from the light well and there is a window that is going to happen in the stairwell. that is it as far as light and air. i agree with the comments that could be a more livable unit, i think. i don't want to do it at the expense of losing a bedroom. uled turn that on you o -- you a larger living area. i would like to see two bedrooms there if possible. can you explain what can be done to improve the light and air? >> the concern about adu is

making sense to me. there is one to improve definitely. we got into the upper floor addition. the adu we can make improvement on it. >> can you talk about how you may be able to add more light in there? >> maybe we can switch the living room and the bedroom. those are options there. >> i was thinking that. then you would access the adu through the bedroom which is strange also. i don't know if planning staff looked at that. it is an odd nested living room situation. >> with adu there is a balance between the additional bedroom and not having access to the rescue window that leads to a safe area. what we find with adus they

are using mechanical ventilation. these are site plans they have not gone through the full development with electrical that would show the reflected plans to indicate if they show light as well. now, i think there is a possibility they may be able to reorient the door then make where they have take door and window. there may be design moves to increase light from the light well or maybe, you know, a few more design moves in that area. it is not going to be, you know, a living room that has as much natural light as the bedrooms in this scenario. if we want this living room to have as much natural light, they would wind up losing the bedroom.

>> commissioner richards. >> if you get rid of the stairs that go down into as you were talking b you could extend the light. >> there is live you go space above the stairs. >> what stairs are you wanting to get rid of? >> you have to incorporate that to the ground floor. >> that is what i would do. i would like to take away the deck in the front, have the project sponsor work with staff on making the adu more livable in terms of light and air and trying to incorporate that stairway. use that as additional living space to make the adu better. >> eliminate the staircase going up. that is a good suggestion. eliminate the laundry room.

you have a laundry room with light and air coming into the laundry room. >> commissioner melgar. >> i was interested in commissioner moore's comments. particularly the second floor. i had in your comments. i am interested what it is you would want to improve. >> it is a general discussion item. in well designed homes you have bathrooms with doors on either side that when the bathroom is okay you paid from one user the other person waits until the bathroom. it is good. okay.

as rehas a modern functioning ht not giving too much space away but detract from general live ability. the dining room and living room and den. none of those are part of this building. that concerns me. i am not trying to raise any suspicions or questions that this owner would not be doing what he is saying. it leaves too many unanswer questions. it is my responsibility to look at the drawings as road maps how people live. if there are too many questions about the monticello or the project where it is not a credible story about a family home that is what i believe we need to do. i think this project has all of

the possibilities to be a better designed project if they spend more time thinking about the functionality of what we are trying to a amend. we might as well send it back to have it thought more around those lines. >> there is a motion that has been seconded. i am a little bit wanting you to amplify. we will sending it back to staff on the adu. rearranging the laundry area and eliminating the steps, getting rid of the deck. i believe that is it. when you say we are sending it back. what other concrete things do you want done? i was looking at homes in palm springs on recess. homes have bathrooms with two doors. we hate these, we hate these. you have to wait for the other

person. we would rather have other own bathroom. it is a preference. jack and jill bathrooms. anything else you would add that we can tell staff, you know, do x, y, z while it is being sent back in. >> what i would tell staff is do what we are talking about here before the project comes to us because the shortcomings of the adu were apparent to you because you called them out before we started. that goes to questions about the completeness of the submittal. those are my comments. i am not going to add any further design suggestions. >> shall i call the question. motion and seconded to take dr and approve the project as amended by the commission eliminating the third floor roof

deck. >> there there two. >> the front third floor roof deck, have the sponsor continue working with staff on the adu for more livable space for light and air, eliminate the stairway from the first floor to the second floor, that would have been the one adjacent. >> that would give the opportunity to improve the design. >> okay. on that motion commissioner fong. commissioner kopppel commissioner moore, commissioner richards commissioner elgar. that motion passes five to one with commissioner moore voting against. that brings us to item 21.

discretionnary review at 2131 41st avenue. >> if you when allow me one moment to just shift. before you is another discretionary review against a project at 2131 41st avenue. i am speaking on behalf of staff for this beliefiated review. this includes remodeling with a 16-foot horizontal addition at the rear and stair penthouse leading to the third level proposed deck. it including interior renovations. the concerns of the application are as follows: permanent loss of light and view in the bedroom windows, potential increased

volume to crowded street volume, history of flip you go houses and -- flipping houses. they reviewed the project and once again when the visits were made to remove the third level entirely in regards to the d.r. requester as well as setting back the first and second level addition by five feet on the side to the property line. they found that it did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. public has received from the project sponsor four form letters signed by neighbors in support of the project and one letter supporting the d.r. request. it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation.

staff is also in the audience to field any questions. project sponsor also available. >> d.r. requester. welcome. >> we have a powerpoint. do you want paper copies? it will be on our screen. >> leave them on the podium and we will grab them. >> this is a typical street in the sun set district, best district in san francisco. two-story houses, close together. windows on front or back. terms of in the 1940s when these were built they were described as spacious and sunny rooms, priced low. that ship has sailed. they have well considered design and combined with thoughtful

planning. this is the current situation. i own the house on the left. my mom and dad bought it in 1948. you grew up in it. my son currently lives there. this large addition on the right to the south wasbility in the early 1950s.

more 50s. . >> the developer considers his proposed development to complement the 1950 very large addition. that means it's substantially out of scale with 23 other homes. going back to the residential design guidelines, building expansions may not be appropriate if they are uncharacteristically deep or tall. an out of scale rear yard addition can leave residents feeling boxed in and cutoff from the open space. current view from our master bedroom. this is the one to the south with the addition. if that's not boxed in and cutoff, i don't know what is. so going back to the residential design guidelines, we're in a three-story neighborhood. what are the recommended additions? two-story addition on the left, a two-story addition on the

right. if we apply that to a two-story neighborhood, i would have to say that a two-story addition is substantially out of scale with the surrounding buildings, and the remedy is to go with a one-story addition. here's the clear guidance from the residential design guidelines. in a three-story neighborhood, you're good for a two-story addition. in a two-story neighborhood, stick to a one-story addition. this is what's on the books, a two-story addition with some additional height on the third floor, a stairwell. our proposed alternative is a one-story rear yard addition and a third story on the existing structure, which is consistent with the recommendation from the residential design advisory team. this is what's proposed: 100% of the sun light on the addition, we're in the shade. this is our alternative, a

one-story addition, a third-story addition on the existing building. they've got plenty of west facing windows in the sun, we keep our two windows and get a couple in the shade. i think this is a much more equitiable division of the impacts. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll take public testimony in support of the d.r. requester. [inaudible] >> president hillis: sorry. so are you supporting the d.r. requester or supporting the project -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: okay. >> commissioner moore: speak into the microphone. >> yeah. i e-mail the letter to all the commissions. actually, i live in the house with the three stories that this gentleman refer to. so when we bought the house 15 years ago, you know, my sister and i bought the house, and this house was -- looked so

unusua unusual. you know, it was the only house with the three floors. and it was a breath taking view. you know, to the two story, in the bathroom, we could see the sea, and it's a panoramic view. i believe at that time, it was kind of buyer's market, but we were still bidding with many others -- buyers who also loved the house, you know, but we were -- we loved it so much, we pay more, and we got the house. we were happy, and over the years, you know, we sell -- weo

not see san francisco to our right anymore. you know, the house is a place to live in, but sometime, it can provide, you know, beauty and joy, and so that's -- i

would like the commissioner, you know, to consider this case. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment in support of the d.r. opposed to the projector concerns with the project? seeing none, project sponsor. >> my name is debra wells. we bought the property back in 2015. we have four children, and when we bought the place, it was pretty much sand dunes and weeds, and we have done dramatic efforts to improve the interior and exterior of the home and create living spaces that are much more enjoyable and i believe have improved the property values of everyone on the block because of that. we do have a big extended family and we do enjoy

entertaining them for extended period of times, and between them and our four children who are home from college, come -- in college, and come home for long breaks, also in between, being able to live in san francisco in an affordable situation, coming home from college will need our help to live in their hometown. so we want to be able to have them have that interim time at home for as long as they may need. so this is why we are trying to do an addition. we have done everything, i feel, very tastefully and would also like to acknowledge that we've made concessions, as well, on these plans to try to please the neighbors as much ae

me for a second. in our first -- this is the first story seen, the elevation from the street. this is the neighbor to the south, this is the d.r. requester, this is the addition, 20'6" to 20 feet

wide. as we move down to the -- up through the building later, we actually -- this is the addition here. we've got the staircase, the bedrooms, on two levels. each bedroom is around 11'3" -- 11.5 feet by 12'3". this stair goes to the roof as the neighbors have pointed out. as you can see, this is the view from the back. so yesterday, we received an e-mail from the staff indicating that the neighbor on the south was complaining about the penthouse, and that the went house was blocking her view from the deck. so that was a late-evening -- we received that information. we talked to the clients on the phone last night, we got our engineer and our framing consultant this morning to talk about what we could do to remove that penthouse. so in your packet, you have this sort of diagram here, and what we're proposing is to remove the penthouse as you see

right here. it's going to be an open stair to the roof deck, so it's, like, a one-story light well. you would open the door on the living level and go up a flight of stairs and it's all open. there is no longer a stair penthouse to the roof deck. i'll show you what's in your packet. i think that is in your packet, and then, that is when it's removed. again, that's in your packet, which is this here, this penthouse. now, it's gone. all we've done is we, of course -- the building department will want us to have the solid wall that will match the neighbor's wall for the deck, and we have glazing railings all the way around. on the back of the building, you can see, yes, it's true there are some shadows here in the morning. but we have to remember that all these facades, the rear facades face west toward the ocean. there'll be sufficient light toward the afternoon. our addition will be

characteristically very similar to this one year, except it'll have a five-foot set back. and again, this was in your packet. i believe this is the penthouse, this is the penthouse, this is the penthouse, this is the penthouse, and this is the penthouse. what we've done now is we've removed that seemed that the

requester didn't contact anyone and try to work things out. so you know that's one of the things that's asked of people building in the city is that you try to work with your neighbors, try to compromise with them. under the new pending legislations that's coming out for d.r.'s, this wouldn't even be heard. there's nothing that's exceptional or some sort of unusual circumstances. you know, the wells' -- just to give you a little bit about the wells. you know, tony has -- was a founding member of golden gate rugby club.

he put a scholarship out for kids who couldn't afford to travel. after he did that, he went over to reardon high school and founded a rugby problem there and founded scholarships to come from the city and go to reardon. tony's a blue collar guy. we're building affordable housing. i don't want to poke -- this isn't an eight bedroom place, this is a four-bedroom place. he takes care of his mother-in-law when she comes to town, sometime. she needs help. we want to improve affordable housing and family housing. if we can't develop on the west side, minimum intensefication on projects like this, where are we going to do it. what are we going to do? if we turn this down, where are we going with intensefication? where is the west side going to

go ahead and absorb some of its responsibility. i grew up on 37 avenue. i love the sunset. i was the beneficiary of an addition because of an addition. this is somebody that's part of the community. i really urge you to deny this d.r. and approve the project as proposed, just to show you, last-minute, they dropped the penthouse on the roof. i mean, these are people that want to work with it. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so any additional comment in support of the project? seeing none, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. my name is monte travis. i represent the d.r. requester, and i'm going to obviously be handling the rebuttal. i just want to make one quick

response to the last speaker. the d.r. requester has tried to work with the wells from the beginning, and there have been some concessions, but not all the concessions that they claim. the five-foot set back was part of the plans as originally seen by the d.r. requester and his family. in addition, the d.r. requester attempted to schedule a community boards mediation, the wells' refused. now i don't want us to be sidetracked by that because that's not the main issue here. the main issue here is all about the possible destruction of the character of that portion of the sunset, and in particular, the midblock open space, its light and its air and its sun. the last speaker made it clear he's all for filling a lot of it in with what's proposed, but this extension that's being requested as part of this project is using as precedent

the extension next door, which is an aberrant extension, built back in the 1950's. there's nothing else like it on that block. there are no other two-story rear yard extensions. that's the only one. now, i also grew up in the sunset. i know what the deal is out there. the sun doesn't even come out in the summer, but that's okay because when the sun does come out other times of the year, and the sky is blue, it's the bluest sky anywhere in the world. what makes this extraordinary and exceptional and what warrants design review in addition to the disproportionate impact on the requester is this danger of the incremental unplanned destruction of the planned block space. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor. >> commissioners, gary gee, gary gee architects.

just briefly, the midblock as we've shown earlier, there are some additions on the block, but also, the remaining 42 feet of rear yard is very generous and sufficient. as you can see from the previous photos, the wells have done a very good job of landscaping. they cherish their rear yard. it's facing west. we feel that this is not an unreasonable addition to a house in the sunset, especially with a family with four children. this summer, they're all there, and they just want some more room to accommodate the family. i think the r.d.t. did ask us to move the building to an existing part, but they had already remodelled that when they got the building. they had sole or panels on that part of the roof. what we've done, we've talked about the building deputy. most of the seismic work for the two stories will be in the back in the new area. if we put the third-story addition on top of the old building, we'd have to seismic upgrade the old building, and

that's a cost and a feature they didn't want to do. so that's why they decided to move the third floor, too. i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so we'll close the public portion of this hearing. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i find the addition reasonable. if we need to look at densification in that area, i believe that's a proposal that the architect proposed, i believe it's within the boundaries of what is supportable. i do understand about the addition basically carrying the responsibility of the seismic upgrade of the existing building. we had other projects like it in support of that. it's some major cost savings, but it is a reasonable addition. and i think that just that there is concern for the penthouse, which i would have brought up myself. i am comfortable with the

project as it is proposed. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so when i heard that the penthouse was going away, i thought the roof deck was going to go away, as well, because -- >> oh, no, the roof deck is remaining. >> commissioner richards: as i look at the map from the air, i'm struggling to find any other houses with roof decks. i think there's one. i don't see any in the block, so, i mean, you have a 47-foot back yard or whatever you say. >> 42. >> commissioner richards: why do you need a roof deck and a -- >> it's just a feature they like to share. >> commissioner richards: if you get rid of the roof deck and get rid of the stair, you actually have more breathing room for the neighbor. densification great, roof decks -- we discussed roof decks a lot here, but with that big of a back yard, being able to create less impact on the neighbor, i would support. >> president hillis: mr. diek,

i'd like to ask you a question. you've got two staircases in the house? >> let me get the drawing here. which sheet are you on? >> president hillis: 2.1. >> okay. it's an original tunnel entry house as you can see, and that staircase coming in on the north side, that has the triangular shaped staircases, that is sort of the tunnel entry to the main door up to the second floor. >> president hillis: can you put that on the overhead? you can just put that drawing on the overhead. >> clerk: gary, you can put it on the overhead. >> oh, i can put it on the overhead? >> president hillis: then you can point to it. >> talking about this staircase, this is the ground floor. >> president hillis: right. you can just speak into the mic. pull it toward you. >> that's the ground floor. that's the stair. in a typical tunnel entry, the house, this is the stair that

comes up to the main floor. of course it's really this one here. >> president hillis: does that, then, staircase go up to the next floor? >> right. that's the main floor. as you can see the kitchen, living room, and a bedroom, and this is the new den, but this stair doesn't go up anymore. >> president hillis: okay. got it. >> so what happens is you see this other scare case right here back, this goes up to the roof, and it also goes down to the lower level, which we have. oh, it went out. >> president hillis: i don't know what happened there. oh, so the back staircase, you need to get up to the next floor. >> correct. the back staircase connects the rooms in the back. there we go. if i can get it in there.

there's your back staircase. it's on the ground floor, and it connects the first and second floor, too. [inaudible] >> president hillis: right, okay. i mean, i -- generally, the board -- kind of commissioner richards, although i think the project sponsor didn't necessarily request it, are we doing it kind of for nobody's benefit. it's a feature that the property owners want. i don't think it's something that's being asked for. as a matter of fact, the d.r. requester is asking for a living space to be out there. >> commissioner richards: right. i mean, i take back my comment. the roof deck's only 239 square feet. that's reasonable. >> thank you. >> president hillis: i encourage you -- we face this a lot where people want to bump out into the rear yard, where it may happen on one side and not on the other side. certainly, you're kind of bearing the brunt of that and the impact of that, but it's code compliant. it's not particularly

extraordinary. we see it happening all the time. you've got the five-foot set back. i encourage you all to continue to work together. maybe there's some modifications, that staircase may be able to squeeze to be more narrow, and you can move the building over, but i don't see anything particularly extraordinary here to grant a d.r. and for us to modify the project. commissioner fong? >> president fong: i'd like to make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> commissioner moore: second. >> commissioners, you pretty want to -- approve the project at -- as modified? >> commissioner richards: yes. >> president hillis: oh, the modified without the -- yeah, without the penthouse. thank you. apologize. >> clerk: commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as has been submitted by the project sponsor, on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. and -- >> president hillis: already. the meet -- all right. the meeting is adjourned in memory of barry gallagher. >> clerk: very good. >> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the

environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved

attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications

bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for

residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community.

>> if you frequently travel before i van ness i might be surprised van ness will goodwill go the first transit corridor to have brt as more frequently known the goal to get conveniently van ness and geary boulevard one of the most reliable transit systems in the country van ness avenue is a major connecter between potrero hill and mission on the south side of san francisco correcting connecting us to the marina and state highway in the financial

with the western edition neighborhood it is mostly residential a lot of the geography of van ness the rain that is wide it was uses is a firebreak in the 1906 san francisco earthquake a lot of building occasion that helped of hoped to stop the fire from jumping van ness had a light rail or sprash separating and along geary 0 when we came to the question of how to address the needs on haven because of its cost effectiveness we have found in the brt system with the new vehicles. >> the new mr. secretary is a change we will actually have transit in the middle ♪ the far legal unit and a broadly prom >> one of the reasons it is in the center a was it is an clouf right-of-way a set of pedestrians will cross from the

sidewalk to the middle of the street a. >> to move the reliable along the corridor with this travel time had been signifying reduced we think the ripped will go from 16 thousand a day in that portion the corridor up to 22 thousand and we'll have those beautiful new one like this one. >> with the dedication of the signal and lighter saying that between stops we were able to estimate a .32 improvement in travel time and a 50 percent reliability improvement as a result. >> we're pitting u putting in a up to date modern system of new thirty foot high light fixtures and pedestrian lights on the same pole again inviting a comfortable environment for pedestrians. >> it has become a 3

dimensional street project. >> the water that is my understanding under the ground and the emergency firefighting water system month will be replaced and new street lights and traffic lights and the paving and stripping the trees both in the medium and on the side. >> the main core of the project goes from market it lombard that's where we'll be replying the sidewalks. >> there are a number of trees that need to be replaced and they will be additional new planting. >> we're planting a lemon gum that gets to be 50 or 60 feet tall that comes over the offer head wires that wee when we get done van ness it will look like a new street it will visit fresh

new looks like the grand boulevard again. >> we're going eliminating left turns off of van ness into the side streets and places the left turning traffic backs up the traffic and upgrading the signals to the mini traffic will flow more smoothly and traffic impacts as we execute the construction signed we're working to minimize these but impacts that will likely shift the traffic up franklin and we'll pick up the traffic. >> right now that looks like we're skeleton to start in march ever 2016 are of our construction. >> in the past people prospective of bus traffic that go unreliable and noisy and very fluting we're here to remake the vehicles are on the streets and with the combination of the brt

improvements much more rail like services with the technology. >> the public is in for a [ gavel ]. >> good afternoon. my name is miguel bustos. this is the regular pleting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure, the successor commission to the san francisco development agency. august 21, 2018. welcome to members of the public. mr. secretary, please call the first item. >> clerk: thank you, invites chair. the first item is item