>> please silence your mobile devices. president hillis. commissioner johnson, commissioner koppel and commissioner moore. we expect missioners melgar and fong to arrive shortly.

item one 1621 diamond street discretionary review to continue december 21, 2018. further commissioners there are a number of additional continuances under your regular calendar. first item 15, upper terrace, 4500, 17th street, the declaration has been withdrawn. the project entitlements are still remaining on the agenda. item 19 for case number -- large

project authorization is proposed for continuance to december 6th. items 20a and b, conditional use authorization and variant are proposed for continuation to january 10, 2019. under the review calendar, item 23 case number 2017-00245, discretionary review is continuance to january 17, 2019. i have no speaker cards. >> any members of the public that would like to speak on the items proposed for continuance?

>> president hillis and commissioners i'm the applicant and property other than of 1621 diamond street should be the first on your agenda for continuance. in response of request by the commission and supervisor mandelman we would like to ask for continuance to december 20th to a date certain to rehear the case for the commission's information, my design team have organized another neighborhood meeting on december 5, 2018. we notified all the neighbors for them to participate. this will be our third neighborhood meeting in each follow-up with modifications and try to accommodate their concerns. we continue to work through the issues. please accept our request for

one continuation until december 20th so we can complete our meeting and our outreach. >> okay. thank you. we've got that on calendar for december 13th? are you okay with the 20th? >> you have three drs on the 20th. the last hearing of the year. you can add it. >> we'll go out with bang. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: motion to continue items 1, 2, 19, 20a and 23 moving item 1 to decembe. >> president hillis: thank you. >> on that motion, to continue items as proposed and moving 1621 diamond to december 20th. [roll call] so moved that motion passes. that will place us under consent

calendar. all matters considered to be routine by the planning commission and maybe acted upon single roll call vote. item 3 case number 2018 2018-00621c145 laurel street commission use authorization. item four, 318 main street, items 5a and b, at 1600 jackson street, conditional use authorization and variances. please note that 1600 jackson street has previously been heard several times. supported a planning code amendment for grocery store use limit and continue the matter todaytor vote of 5-1.

in order to participate in voting on the item on the consent, you need to acknowledge that you reviewed the previous materials. >> i'm prepared to vote. >> thank you. i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any members of the public like to pull these items off our consent calendar, you can come up. go ahead sir. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm bruce mcilroy. i live at 244 laurel and i'm referring to the consent calendar item. >> president hillis: we have to hear if you want to pull it off consent? >> yes, do i.

>> 145 laurel. >> thank you. >> president hillis: i'm going to vote aye on jackson street even though i opposed the motion because there's only four of us up here. >> we need a motion. >> president hillis: commission. >> commissioner moore: move to approve all items on consent. >> president hillis: we'll hear that first sir on regular calendar. is there a second. >> thank you commissioners. approving item four with conditions and disapproving items 5a, commissioner koppel. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4-0. we don't need to take action on the variance. it's been closed.

>> president hillis: it doesn't matter anyway. the project was approved. >> very good. that will place under commission matters item 6 consideration of draft minutes. >> president hillis: any public comments on the draft minutes? >> commissioner koppel: motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for november 8 and 15th, [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 4-0. item 7 i need to apologize for having hearing come back to you. when we reviewed it last time i overlooked the budget schedule. coupled with historic preservation commission review

with the budget and work program and the accelerated time line for our submittal. we need to reinstate february 14th. we can, in exchange cancel january 21st or keep it in your back pocket for the future. it's up to you. if you choose to keep february e14th, you could. >> president hillis: do have anything on the advance calendar for january 31st? >> we do not. >> commissioner moore: i did noit participate in the deliberations. i would suggest that we do not take any additional time off.

>> president hillis: when cancel the meeting on the 31st. do we need a motion on this? >> we do need a motion to amend your 2019 hearing scheduled by reinstating february 14th. >> president hillis: commission? >> commissioner johnson: make a motion to approve the 2019 hearing schedule as amended. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. on that motion, reinstating february 14th. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4-8. item eight, comments and questions. >> president hillis: seeing none. >> department matters item nine, director's announcements >> no new announcements. >> item ten, board of trustees

and board of appeals. >> good afternoon commissioners. manager of legislative affairs. the committee here cohen's ordinance that can create the 1511515 evans street. commissioners you heard this item on november 8th and voted to approve the proposed ordinance. at land use hearing there were many speakers who spoke in favor of the amendment. the committee forwarded the item to the full board. the committee considered supervisor kim's ordinance. you may recall this amendment came out of supervisor kim's proposed better street ordinance that you heard on october 18 october 18th. you exceeded staff

recommendation to eliminate parking requirement. instead recommended they should be removed citywide. supervisor kim duplicated her ordinance and then the land use committee considered that this week. this item was continued from the november 1st land use hearing so supervisor kim can do additional outreach. they held outreach meetings to which were well attended. most of those who attended were in favor of the proached amendment -- proposed amendment. at the land use hearing large came out to speak in favor and one speaker spoke in opposition. supervisor yee was uncomfortable with the proposed amendment. supervisor tang felt more comfortable moving the item forward. in deference to supervisor safai's concern, they forwarded

without recommendation. while limited its impact because we have removed minimum parking requirements in san francisco this ordinance will send a clear message that san francisco is serious about transit first, better streets and policy and its commitment to addressing climate change and reducing co2. at the full board, several items passed second reading including the special use district responserred by supervisor if fewer. the two ordinances 1629 market street special use district the inclusionary housing ordinance sponsored by the mayor, affordable housing ordinance sponsored by supervisor brown and the pop up retail ordinance

introduced by supervisor tang. all the ordinances except for the admin and changes passed it this week. the code changes needed some minor technical amendments so that one ordinance was amended and passed first read. it will receive its second read next week. that's all i have for you today. >> president hillis: are there other reports? >> i don't see anyone from the zoning district. i'm sorry, i didn't check my email. i don't believe there's a report from the board of appeals. and the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and considered the african-american cultural heritage district next and voted unanimously to recommend approval. >> president hillis: any questions or comments? >> that will bring us to regular calendar. item three was pulled off

consent. we'll take up that matter now for case number 2018, 145 laurel street. commission use authorization. >> good afternoon president hillis and planning commissioners. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new at&t mobility macro wireless telecommunication facility. the project scope will include installation of 16 panel antennas with frp screening and closures, 24 radio units and one gps antenna. all f.r.p. screens will be painted white to match. the project site is located within rh1 zoning district and subject site contains one building been the use of a

building is an apartment. the proposed wireless facility which is considered a favored location according to the planning department's wireless telecommunications facility siting guidelines. the applicant demonstrates in the analysis which publicly use buildings, or other preferred locations sites are located within the geographic service area. the applicant demonstrates what good base efforts and measure were taken to secure preferred location site. the coverage and capacity data evaluation demonstrates how proposed locations is essential to meet the demands in the service area and the applicant citywide network. at&t held a community meeting on wednesday from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., approximately 13 community members were in attendance. at the meeting, site selection,

buildout plan, technology, and the entitlement process were discussed. as of november 29, 2018 planning staff has received comments from three community members. one email in protest of the project, one email expressing support of the project and a third email requesting a copy of the plans and clarification regarding the planning process. the department find the that this project is on balance consistent with the wireless guidelines at the objectives of policies of the general plan. please note on page 9, policy g response should read as project site contains a historic resource. the architecture for the subject building is alfred henry jacob and the build was built in 1919. installation of rooftop wireless facility will not affect the current use inside the building and the historic character shall

be preserved. i'm available for any questions. >> president hillis: project sponsor? >> good afternoon planning commission. i represent at&t. i want to thank staff for their help on this project. i read the staff report and at&t is in agreement with the conditions. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> president hillis: thank you very much. we'll take public comment first. is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon again commissioners. i'm bruce mcilroy, i'm speaking in opposition to this project. i have a photo here of the

project. i'm not speaking out on any conditions regarding the electromagnetic radiation. >> president hillis: you put it on the overhead? the photo? >> yes. the anti-view that the at&t project proposed really didn't show the impact of what these ups style trucks. there's big ups trucks on top of this building. it's a historical resource. i have some questions. i see that the staff is recommended approving. i'm just wondering why planning

commission discounts the response at the public outreach meeting. i was at that meeting. it was 100% against and maybe 1% more. we heard nothing back. the size of these boxes on top are just huge. they will impact the views of everybody. which is the shape of a bowl. it's like having frankenstein guy sitting at at&t park in the lower row with a huge hat on. this is already a nonconforming height limit. this is a 40-foot height limit area. now exes ex-- i wonder why the commission would let that go. the other is essentially one-story construction on top of a nonconforming use. already, over 75 feet high and

40-foot height limit. also, the entire neighborhood just going to be impacted by this. all the neighbors the korean consulate, everybody up on clay street and they will see these large things. i have couple proposals. i have a continuance on this to discuss it further. change the design so these boxes aren't like four ups buses. thank you very much. >> president hillis: any additional public comment on this item? we'll close public comment. commissioners?

>> commissioner moore: we accept these projects as is. it is unusual going back to the simulation here that proposed -- [indiscernible] we had other buildings in the past. at least one or two. where we ask for slightly more careful continuation. we ask for alternatives. i'm remembering the situation at the corner of golf and union, commissioner fong will remember that. that is a view corridor coming down franklin street, which really interfeared with the perception looking towards the arena. this is accumulation of the building i will not be opposed to having at&t take a slightly more careful look on the exact

placement, orientation and size what's proposed to you. >> president hillis: maybe helpful to ask at&t here if they considered alternative layouts on top of that building. i don't know sir, do you know where that perspective was taken from what he showed? >> i think that was from the condo building. that wasn't public view. the original design had the antennas slightly closer to the edge of the roof line. planning had us set them back. but that was the only design change requested by planning was to set them back. we set them back 11 feet 6 inches from the edge of the building.

>> commissioner moore: i would argue setting back of the ones ione isfine. >> president hillis: there's four. what exist up there is the pen house. you trying to match the character of the penthouse? >> we don't exceed the height of the penthouse. each enclosures are approximately the same size. we can think about -- i'm not sure what the commission wants to see. i don't know if you have any recommendations. >> commissioner moore: off the top of my head, i would have to think about that little bit

more. mostly grouping them in a manner that they don't line up and create additional structure. there's a better way of doing it changing the broader side to the narrow side. it would require planning to take a careful look and look at it one more time. this is not issue of objecting to the antenna. this is a question of sensitivity towards the rangement. these are pictures taken from the street. >> the view that he prevented was not from the public. >> commissioner moore: the one we have from the public right-of-way is what i'm talking about. it would not consider that too big of ask, i would suggest we do that. >> if i can maybe add on to that

design request and maybe we can have at&t provide more detail. the placement of the antennas if you can speak to if the arrangement of the antenna on the roof can be reoriented so that can help guide us in providing additional design solutions for the screening. >> that would have to go back to the engineering team to determine -- are you trying to -- >> president hillis: some of the question resolves around, are there alternatives where you can group two of these together and maybe an area of the roof that's left visible instead of having four? i don't know if that still meets what you're trying to do as far as service. >> sure. the reason that they are situationed the way they were on the plan is to achieve coverage in all four areas.

we have huge holes in the area. that's the reason that they are placed those four areas. if we were to move them and one of the things that's troublesome about antennas when you move them back, you have to go higher. it's sort of like what do you want to do. go higher or go closer to the edge. we could always take it back and see what we can come up with. the reason they were chosen to be at those locations was to expand the coverage in the full circle. thank you. >> commissioner koppel: seeing building is a little higher than most in the neighborhood. that's why i thought this will be a good site for the antennas. i'm sure that the design and engineering is pretty much done as well as it could be. i'm okay with it. from that street view, it doesn't seem to --

[indiscernible] >> commissioner moore: i'm sitting between two chairs. we want the coverage but we do not want to sacrificeothe visual quality. it's a balance. i would say that the soldiering up what see here is a little bit of excessive. i like to have another careful look. if there's tweaks that can be done without sacrificing technology, i would say that is worth doing. vice president melgar: i apologize for being late. i agree with you commissioner moore. i do that this we -- i do think that we need to have coverage. i agree what you're trying to do. seeing it is a little bit higher building than what is in the neighborhood, i would like to have the visual impact be small as possible in the surrounding

neighborhood. maybe it's to be it goes little bit higher. as long as it's set back and you don't see it. i don't know that. i don't know how much. i'm with you commissioner moore. >> i want to comment. the way the antennas work, the further back they are set, the higher the antennas need to go because of roof surface causes shadowing on the signal. the preference is always to have antennas on the edge. that's the preference. the planning department has that one to one set back. moving them back would cause the structure to be higher. i want you to keep that in mind. vice president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner moore: motion to continue the item for further examination. we're not challenging the necessity of the antennas, we are wanting little bit more sensitive towards visual

impacts. vice president melgar: second. >> president hillis: what we're looking for i think -- i support the motion, i want to kind of hopefully move this along and give some direction. maybe an alternative that we can look at that maybe cluster them together and have two instead of four. we get there's an impact. there's an impact from these. it is that balance people wanting service but necessarily wanting to see them. these are necessary and i think you've done fairly good job designing them. if we can see alternatives and tweak them to group them together and not have four, that will be helpful. >> would december 13th be too soon? >> president hillis: you're okay with december 13th? is there a second? >> there was a second. commissioners there's a motion

to continue this matter to december 13th. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner koppel voting against. commissioners that will place us under regular calendar for item 11. for the polk guidelines than, planning code amendment. >> i'm here today to introduce the special area design guidelines. this effort came about as a result of public request for guidelines that focused on specific features and unique characteristics in their neighborhood commercial districts. we started the process of creating by listening and walking with community members who wanted more localized

guidelines. process that allowed us to see, reflect and document some of the unique physical neighborhoods, characteristics to maintained and enhanced. staff worked closely with community organizations including members from the middle polk neighborhood association, pacific avenue neighborhood association and russian hills neighborhood association to develop and review the draft of the polk design guidelines through the fall of 2017 to 2018. the guidelines applied to the polk street and the pacific avenue districts. planning code section 723 and

726 contains results from the district respectively. the purpose is to initiate code amendments to reference the special area guidelines into those code sections. we did not start from scratch. some cases they've been edited for usability. the content remains the same. some guidelines were added to respond to the design of alleys and roof decks with input from community members. guidelines were also structured and formatted to be consistent with urban design guidelines. special area of design

guidelines includes a statement that expresses a clear description of the physical features and values to be maintained and enhanced. also similar to the urban design guidelines, each guide alone has a rationale and examples that show several means of achieving each guideline. also similar to the urban design guidelines they are broken down in three category. site design, architecture and public road. let's look the handful of guidelines and get familiar with them. guideline s2.2, respect year yard open spaces. with issue high concerns of community members. isite design 2.4, reinforces tie

honored tradition to shaping build to the topography. at the interior of the lots as well. on wide lots it can be used to articulate of larger frontage buildings. moving along to the architecture section, we received a good deal of request to include preservation guidelines from our urban design effort. this is no different from the polk pacific guideline. however we included a policy from the commerce industry

element policy into our a1.1, preserve architecturally important building. it may not be preservation worthy. may have architectural merit.

lighting, signage, protective overhangs and other scaled features. lastly, the public realm section, specifically addresses some of the efforts that have gone into the polk and specific areas with respect to alleys.

we believe that we have created guideline document that elaborates and responds to relevant design issues in the polk neighborhood commercial district. this concludes my presentation. i'll be available to take questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you mr. winslow. i got two speaker cards, robin tucker and chris bigelow. >> good afternoon. it's good to see you. president hillis, directors. my name is robin tucker. i'm the co-founder and co-chair for the pacific avenue neighborhood association also commonly known as pana.

i'm appearing on behalf the pacific neighborhood association in partnership with lower polk neighbors and middle polk neighborhood association and in support of the work of the san francisco planning department. we're seeking your support to begin the process. we have been working collaboratively for over a year to bring to guidelines with new clarity, context and design for neighborhood mix of commercial and residential communities. we are particularly proud of the work to date as we have seen input from members from the community and from multiple neighborhood organizations along with the team represented by the san francisco planning department. the result is guidelines that

are contemporary and relevant. they address environmental design elements to our existing small-scale neighborhoods. with so many alleys and narrow streets, historical modern and eclectic building design and diverse cultural mix. we believe the new guidelines will provide developers and planners and neighbors with effective, design guidance that is visually instructive and text that is informative. we look forward to approval polk guideline. we thank you for your >> president hillis: mr. bigelow .

>> good afternoon. i'm chris bigelow. i'm here stite my strong support for the proposed ordinance to amend the control tables to reference the polk pacific area design guidelines. the enhanced text plus illustrations and photographs will establish well-defined criteria for the evaluation proposed projects with respect to the varied and fine-grained context of the neighborhood. please approve the i initiation of this process. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. i want to echo what my peers before me said. this is truly a process.

that was a collaboration between the department and community committees. it was a pleasure to work with the department. it was a pleasure to work with my pierce and other groups. i want to thank the department for recognizing our lower polk alley vision plan. i hope to have an opportunity to present that to the commission so you can learn more about it. but this was really just the wonderful process. i think it's great that it's going to be codified. i look forward to having that move forward. >> president hillis: any additional public comment on this item? we'll close public comment. >> commissioner moore: i think this is a bright like in the design guidelines. while i was critical of the original design guidelines as a process, i'm delighted to see the maturity and the quality of what these areas of specific items brought forward. it is not just the specific aspect of the neighborhood being

captured and diagrams, it's remarkable there's a collaborative effort. this will be an example for taking a second look at other neighborhoods that would have the capacity to emulate this. this will be a great supplemental tool. i'm delighted and congratulate everybody at the department and neighborhood groups. we suggest that we initiate and schedule this for adoption. >> second. >> commissioner johnson: i want to echo commissioner moore's comments. i think it's a great moment when different neighborhood groups can come together and be proactive about creating a supplement that really speaks to

the values and desire of a neighborhood that i think will help everyone from developers to neighborhood groups to planning staff. i think about what the future of this district is. i screwup said -- i couldn't have said it better myself. i was delighted to see it and read it. i want to thank the neighborhood groups for your hard work and thank you staff for your hard work as well. >> commissioner moore: i want to thank planning staff. these kinds of things can only happen if everybody participat participates. great job and let's keep moving in that direction.

>> president hillis: thank you all and congratulations. we can take a vote. there was a second. there was a motion and a second. >> very good. commissioners on that motion to initiate the planning code amendment and schedule a hearing january 20, 2019. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners item 12, designated child care units planning code amendment. hill >> good afternoon commissioners. the proposed legislation i will present today was introduced to

the board of supervisors by supervisor yee. supervisor yee worked with planning to develop this proposed legislation. staff will speak more to this legislation. to provide some context, the planning department's work in support focuses on five broad areas. the suggest changes to the program which will support affordable housing and quality child care. child care is important for parents who want to remain in the workforce. it's important for city's economy and for economic equity. it's also important for young children. i would like to start with an introduction to child care. child care refers to providing

for children 0 to 5. child care also includes licensed centres which serve more than 14 kids. both categories are licensed and regulated bethe -- by the state. no city agency planning, has regulatory authority over the small family child care home. in the state does not require small family child care homes to have outdoor space. as you can see, there are more than 23,000 children ages 0 to 2 in san francisco but only 3400

child care spots for them. which means there's enough spots for 15%. we're doing much better providing child care for preschoolers. our population of children is growing. what these numbers don't show are the factors impacting child care conditions. parents looking for child care must consider costs and hours of operations, programming along, meals offered, ages accepted. children not in child care maybe with a nanny or family member may step out thework force. in january 2016 legislation passed to regulate designated child care units. developer can designate a unit as a dccu. the developer's child care fees will be reduced. the tenant would have to operate small family child care home which will be monitored by office of early care education. unfortunately, most market rate units would likely be unaffordable to family child

care providers. developers are still able to create market-rate dccus. the legislation before you today would add a number of new opportunities to a dcu program. it could be included on the ground floor i want to note that planning code defines child care facilities as an active use but family child care homes are not an active use. based only city survey, family child care providers about median income. in response to feedback from the commission, this legislation is crafted for the dccus will be in addition to requirements. these are rental units and currently affordable. a list of eligible tenants will be generated by the office of early care and education tone sure all tenants have experience operating the child care. the mayor's office would longtor

tendency and tenant who does not begin to operate a family child care ceased to provide care within the first ten years would have to vacate. if a tenant provided care for 10 years they can cease to provide care and still remain in the unit. tenant of a bmrdccu must provide a license. the proposed changes to the dccu program -- the legislation would amend two sections of the planning code.

family child care homes can care for infants. currently there aren't enough spots. the legislation would create dedicated bmr units and protecting housing for the provider. there were 53 family child care homes in 2007 and ten years later there were only 27. since child care is operated by women, these units will help to employ women and provide stable housing. the department recommends commission approved the proposed ordinance. if you have any questions, around child care, let's ask those. staff from supervisor yee's is

here and would like to speak more about this. >> thank you. thank you president hillis and commissioners. thank you so much to the staff. we're so excited to bring this legislation back to you today. for those who remember, this has gone through many evolutions. we are so proud torque close -- to work closely with your staff and early care education community on developing this legislation. our hope is that this policy creates another spark so they can think more creatively how to address growing need of child care options in san francisco. as you know, in june 2018, earlier this year, sa san franciscans passed early care education for all initiatives

which would expand funding for child care specifically for infants and toddlers. as -- family child care homes are licensed by the state and allow them to operate in their own homes. however, as we are so alarmingly aware cost of living in san francisco is out of reach for many residents. the volatility of a housing market has left child care providers feeling the pressure. few years ago we heard heart breaking stories from providers who operated for decades in their communities but were forced out because of rent increases. there's nothing we can do to protect them. for these providers, it's not just one blow, it's a triple blow. not only do they lose their homes, they lose their livelihoods, their business and

they're also uprooted from the communities that they serve. those families that they serve are now out of child care and seeking options elsewhere. this is a problem that just continues to grow in a domino effect. as we all know commercial vacancies have been a bain of many developments. we heard that while child care is an amenity it's unfeesable to put a centre in you have to provide open space which is also limited in our high-cost of build outs. of course, we have codes and

requirements that are often hard to navigate. in order to address child care crisis here we have to be innovative on all fronts. in addition to increasing investments of early care education, we must stabilize the family child care providers in the city. most of them are women, 92% of them are women almost 83% are women of color. this is an industry that when actually be more equitable if we're able to stabilize them. the legislation before today is market-driven. it's not something that we're forcing on developers. we're providing options. if developer chooses to provide the child care unit, they could get a reduction in their developer's child care impact fees but they would also bring in an amenity to their building. thirdly, they would also be able

to bring in hopefully rent in a space that might otherwise be vacant. the other thing i want to mention for you today is that after meeting with the developers to see whether or not they will opt in this program, they want to see more child care options. we do want to offer couple of amendments that we want to entertain. as states now, the unit need to be designated a child care unit for ten years. it would actually remain the bmr unit in perpetuity. that seems to be a difficult decision for developers or property owners because that's a unit they would like to have more flexibility. supervisor yee is offering the amendment to allow this unit after the designation period to go back to market rate. in ex-- in exchange we're extending from 10 years to 15

years. also in working with developers and the mayor's office of housing, we have great concern after that 15-year mark, we don't want to evict everyone living there. developers said that themselves. that was a tough trade-off for us. we recognize that we want to incentivize developers to opt into this program. this will be a first in the nation. hopefully we can think of other ideas of how we can keep child care providers in affordable housing. thank you so much for considering this legislation. i want to thank so much for the time and effort for sheila and jacob winslow who worked on this legislation. thank you and let us know if you have questions.

>> president hillis: is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco coalition. i'm very much in support of this. i want to comment supervisor office for being proactive and producing an efficient legislation that will be utilized. lot of this conversation was back and forth. we brought our members in the conversation. >> president hillis: any additional comment? seeing none. >> good afternoon, my name is

danny soddier. this is an issue we care about a lot. our newest committee is an organization. this is something that we work together more on. we support this legislation. we think it's very smart and it gets to the heart of three pressing issues our neighborhood and citywide being allows -- which is housing affordability. we hear san francisco is not the city with the lowest number of children. i think that's something we need to work on. something that we should take some shame in. we should work to correct. this is a step forward in correcting that. we believe that strong cities are cities that have families at their core and if a city can work for a family, then it can work for almost any user group.

we do ask for some modifications in the letter that we're sharing. small things like safety concerns making sure these are not directly next to a bar. one last note, one of our neighborhood organizations recently did a family survey. it's really fascinating. one of the questions in that survey, do you believe that city officials are doing enough for families. 70% said no. i think this is a small step forward in correcting that today. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional public comment? we'll close public comment. vice president melgar: thank you. thank you for