>> commission regular hearing for thursday, december 20, 2018. i would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobil devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [taking roll] s we do expect commissioner moore to arrive shortly. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration for items proposed for continue wants.

conditional use authorization is proposed for continue answer to january 24, 2019. item two, case number 2018-007366cua at 838 grant avenue is proposed for continuance until january 31, 2019. item three, case number 2017-009635cua at 432 colterland avenue. conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 31, 2019. item four, case number 2017-009224cua at 601 have been necessary avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to february 21, 2019. further, item six, case 2018-012330cua at 447 broadway is proposed for continue wants to january 17, 2019. and under your discretionary

review calendar, item 16, case number 2017-01360drp at 1621 diamond street, discretionary review is proposed for continue wantss to january 31, 2019. i have no other items posed for continue wants. i have two speaker cards for 447 broadway, but i believe they wanted to talk about the project. >> ok. so, any public comment on the items proposed for continue wants? >> so, those persons who submitted speaker cards for 447 broadway, you may come up and speak but object to the matter of the continue -- continuance itself. >> now is your time. welcome. >> good afternoon, mr. president. and commissioners. my name is mark. i am supporting this project and the -- we have a request not to continue the matter and consider it today.

it was in the consent calendar earlier. there were some concerns raised by a neighborhood organization which we addressed and one of the issues involving this project, we're a small business. we have been holding the owner of the building to rent the space and the owner has been pushing for us to rent -- enter the lease and rent the space. if we don't get the conditional use, we will lose an essential amount of money in a deposit and there is a competing tenant who wants to convert that space into a garage. into a commercial garage and increase the vehicular traffic on that small ally. so we humbly request that you consider this matter today. i understand some of the concerns relate to the fire exit and all of those concerns will be addressed with the building department. we have a preapproval,

presubmission meeting that will be scheduled. we requested that meeting last week. we will know when this meeting will take place. but so far we've been waiting for the conditional use authorizations to move forward with this project. we have an architect who is -- who has prepared two plans to satisfy the fire and safety condition. we are going to be b occupancy with less than 25 people in this space and we've been wait, for almost nine months at this point just to get to this hearing and we would really praoernlts an opportunitis to hear this. and last request, if we do have to continue, we request that we continue it to the nearest possible date, which is january 10. thank you so much for your response. >> thank you. any other public comment? go ahead, sir. you can speak. >> president hill, commissioners, thank you very much. i'm francisco montos t architect of 447 broadway. i also would like the project

to continue. i'm here, you know, defending my clients and the -- my license that this project is consistent with the building and fire department. you know, as soon as we get into the details. but it's very clear. there's some confusion about whether we were on -- or part of the above tenant. we are not. there is a nightclub above us that has, you know, had a long reputation in that neighborhood. that is not it is 10 feet above us and has access to a different alley. we're here to hopefully get these guys their business up and rung. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would also suggest that you continue as proposed for

another meeting. mainly because we are the immediate neighbor to this project and we've never been in contact with the proposers, either the architect or the business owners, prospective business owners. and their application actually has a number of very important technical problems and if i may, if i could show you that one of this is the diagram of the entriway and the actual location for the entriway isn't even the alley. it's incorrect. that is the roll-in entry. so, i've mentioned this in letters which i will submit to you and include letters from our neighbors, the residence nearby. but i think to clarify with more time and some contact with these proposers would serve us all very well. >> thank you. any additional comment on the items proposed for continuance?

we'll close public comment. commissioners? jonas, why -- the item coming off being continued, that was at the request of the supervisor? >> well, it came through staff, yes. >> all right. and what is the date we're proposing for that? >> january 17. >> ok. commissioner koppel. >> move to continue items one, two, three, four, six and 16 to the dates specified. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to continue all items as proposed -- [roll call] so moved this. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 which places us under your consent calendar of the last remaining item listed under the consent calendars considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate

discussion of this item also in member of the commission or public oar staff so requests and in which it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered -- and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item five, case number 2018-008389cua, conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> anybody who would like the remove this from the consent calendar? we have one. >> [inaudible]. the gentleman that was going to speak for us today is not here yet. i'm wondering if we can put -- >> are you the project sponsor? >> i am not. i am a resident and we've been examining it. i know we're late to the game. >> but do you want us to hear it and not have it on the consent calendar? right now it is on our consent calendar which means we don't

take it up. we just approve it. >> we're hoping that we can -- >> talk about it? ok. so, we'll add this to our regular calendar and then -- >> our speaker will be here. thank you very much. >> we'll put this first on the regular calendar. >> very good. commissioners, that will place us under commission matters. consideration of adoption draft minutes for december 6, 2018. >> any comment public on the draft minutes? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner koppel? >> move to approve draft minutes for december 6, 2018. >> second? >> second. >> thank you. commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes for december 6, 2018 -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0.

item eight, commissioners comments/questions. commissioner richards? >> can you put this up on the overhead, please? we heard an item last thursday, 49 hopkins and we had the project sponsor part of the l.l.c. for the redevelopment of that project come and claim that he and his family were going to move to 49 hop kins because he and his family needed the space. we'll hear demo legislation. and people say all kinds of things to us and we hear "family" and we go, oh, we need more family housing. does the family housing conform to the family housing suggested guidelines? a lot of things that people shines us on.

this man, johnston, on 9-9-18, he knocked the house down in late 2017. he was interviewed in 2018 and he says my home is in central florida. i develop single-family homes and multiunit buildings in san francisco, but i intend to raise my family in central florida. yet he stood before us last thursday and he claimed he was going to move into 49 hopkins. enough said. >> commissioner moore? >> i'd like to make a constructive suggestion that at some point this commission is introduced of processing program works. since we last time and this week again have something where somehow what we have in front of us is not fully understood based on the way it is submitted, little shortcuts or whatever, because it has an implied understanding within the program that we're just, by

consent approving these things. i would like to have this commission get a better introduction of how it is being handled. what exactly the [inaudible] are. we are all in support of expediting particularly local-grown small business approximately indications. -- applications. however, it makes me personally want to hear a little bit more what is entailed in the processes that we can most supportive of suggest certain modification of how that process is being handled. it would be to the benefit of all if i get a second on that in order to encourage the director to help us move forward with that. >> commissioner richards? >> so, my thought on it -- on this topic was we seem to have had these come forward in the last couple of years and there was no issue with them. however, it seems like the projects may be more complicate or controversial and i know we had like two last week there at the corner store, which seemed to be not a big issue and then

we had this one today which i couldn't tell what it was. and the process calls for hey, kind of a skeletal minimal amount of work into this because these aren't supposed to be controversial. maybe we need relook at what goes in these and what doesn't go in these especially when it deals with live entertainment and maybe criteria that throws these out to a more rigorous process unless -- a streamlined process. >> ok. >> seeing nothing further, department matter, director's announcements. >> good afternoon. maybe we'll start with a memo just describing how we're doing it and then follow up with further discussions with you after that. secondly, i just wanted to call your attention to the memo that is in your packet today on the director's bulletin related to the state density bonus. we are -- you know, we only in the last couple of years have started to receive projects proposing to use the state

density bonus and it's taken a while to figure out how to implement the program and now we have a number of projects -- maybe half a dozen to 10 that are proposing in some form using the state density bonus so we wanded to make sure we were consistent in how we used that program. of particular interest, i think, is how we calculate the base density. how do you calculate the density that is allowed under current zoning without using the bonus. what this memo does is try to be very clear about how to do that so then all the projects do it the same way. consistent with state law. and we'll move forward in a more streamlined way in how we implement these projects. just wanted to call that to your attention. that is how we implement that program at this point. lastly, i just wanted to naention we do have a couple of hearings upcoming on housing programs. i think what we're likely to do is break that up into a couple of sessions in january and perhaps february when we talk about the current pipeline at the request of president hillis. we'll talk about the current pipeline as it relates to our

budget as well as kind of the larger policy questions around the state, especially around the state housing bills and other policy issues that are coming up and we're facing a whole new round. we are hoping to bring that to you in the first couple of months next year. and thirdly, i hope you all have a great holiday season. >> point of clarification? >> somebody asked me a question yesterday and i didn't know the answer and they said why is it all of a sudden we've severed this state density bonus. was there a defining trigger -- >> there was. about three years ago. there was maybe three years ago my memory serves me right. there was a court case related in the east bay, i believe -- i can't remember. it might have been berkeley that relates to -- it was a community, it might have been berkeley or another that implemented -- [coughing]

implemented a statement program the way we did and the court ruled we had to basically rule in that case that the city still had to allow for the bonus on top of their inclusionary programs and on top of their existing s.u.d. programs and so forth. we realized that was an exact precedence to san francisco. >> if there's nothing further, item 10, review of past events. there is no report for the board of supervisors. i have no report from the board of appeals. just the historic preservation commission met yesterday. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff here with you. here to share two items from yesterday's preservation commission hearing. the first was the -- if i could get the overhead, please. the amended landmark designation for our lady of guadalupe church in north beach and on the border of russian hill. our lady of guadalupe was designated as a local landmark in 1993.

however at the request of the community and the remaining members of the congregation, the commission voted unanimously in support of also dez nating the full interior of the church. in 2003, the city was not allowed to designate the interior of private property and so the amended designation -- the amended ordinance in 2007 now allows us to designate the interior of private publicly accessible properties. and, therefore, this designation will move forward to the commission and to the full board early next year. i will point out that the property owners are in support of the local designation and this commission will be reviewing a conditional use authorization for new uses in that property that are afforded landmark properties, flexible in the zoning provided that there's some maintenance and rehabilitation plan in place for that local landmark.

second is the commission received an informational presentation on a pilot program that the department is beginning called the historic resource assessment program. there's been a long-standing request from the development and the public -- development community and members of the public to provide an assessment or essentially survey a property without a project on file with the city. this essentially allows us to go out answer survey a property at an owner's request without having a project on file. therefore, a cequa analysis is not being put together or a ceqa analysis is not determined and we're just going out and looking at a property and determining whether or not the property appears to be eligible for the california register. this pilot program is going to begin in 2019. we're going to monitor it very closely for the first six months and report back to both commissions on the success of

the program, interest in the program from the public but also whether or not we need to adjust our fee schedule to accommodate this new application. at this point, we will be charging only time and materials for this work. so that concludes my report unless you have any questions. >> commissioner moore? >> mr. frye, i was copied on a letter where you were informed that the original house drawings were located at ucla. >> that is correct. >> could you share that, please, with this commission? >> yes. i can't recall if it's his son or grandson raymond, contacted us to let us know where exact little they believe the largent house plans are located in the ucla archives. so once the planner engaged -- reengages that project sponsor and to bring the project in compliance with this commission, we'll be asking them to seek those original drawings from that archive.

>> thank you. >> thanks. commissioner richards? >> question, mr. frye. if the project sponsor does not choose to rebuild the house in a certain period of time, do you take enforcement action? >> my understanding is if plans are not submitted within 30 days, then the planner will refer it to the enforcement -- or zoning and compliance team in our department. yes. >> one other question, mr. frye. does the historic evaluation without the ceqa determination apply to districts as well as individual propertis? >> that is a great question. it does, although at this time we may be hedging our bets and postponing that and postponing that final determination until city-wide survey. gets out to that area of the city because we don't want to put that onus on the departments or single property owner to evaluates an entire neighborhood. >> our neighborhood was evaluated in 2007-2008 and it

left off two blocks times four. like eight blocks. we're looking to tl*is neighborhood on the register and and it already passed the sniff test east of 1 street. but a portion that still hasn't been surveyed. so i think that will be an eligible use for this streamline process. >> yes, you could apply for this. >> thank you. >> yep. thank you. >> commissioners, before we move on, i wanted to congratulate you on a very productive year and applaud your efforts. you held over 40 hearings, you approved over 200 projects and you considered over 60 d.r.s in 2018. >> how many units? >> we'll have that count for you later. [laughter] >> i can't wait to tweet it. commissioners, general public comments, not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission that are within the subject jurisdiction of the commission, with exempt agenda items. that will be afforded when the

item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the limit, general public comment may be moved to end of the agenda. there are two speaker cards. >> good afternoon. i'm regifting to all of you my letter to you from december 17, 2015. it's still appropriate, i think. but i did add a little hand-written note on there and i said things to ask for additionally, and i also want to add, starting to -- i forgot to write it down there. looking at the tenure of the units that you approve. as you know, your definition of rh2 is districts devoted to one family, two family houses with the ladder commonly consisting of two large flats.

one occupied by the owner and the other available for rental. and i think that's often overlooked as you dense fi and i hope that you can look at it this year. the other thing i want to point out in terms of the rear yard issue that was brought home to me -- as well as the unit thing on december 6 -- was the importance of the rear yard. and there was an article and here's a copy. it's also in the "new york times" about the importance of small yards and urban environments helping with climate change and now we're talking about climate change and housing and i think we need to also consider another aspect that the yards may be important. may i have the overhead, please? that is the yard that existed until 2015 and there was excavation of three to five feet roughly and this is what it turned into. that's not real grass.

that's fake grass. or turf, as some call it. and just to give you an idea, you can see the back, you know. it's a single family home and rh2. and just to get the overview of, you know, what the whole block could look like, you see the impact of that. imagine that multiplied in all those yards. so i think if you want to think about climate change, i think there's merit in that article and i hope you get a chance to read it and think about those issues as you densify. when you do major excavation, you're getting rid of rear yards, basically. that's it. sorry to regift. but it still seemed appropriate. thank you. >> thank you. happy holidays. >> same to you. >> good afternoon, commissioners and president hillis.

before i offer my comments on 33 california street, i first want to apologize to each of you and especially to president hillis. at last week's hearing, you listened with respect to my comments and i thank you. unfortunately, i did not accord the same respect to president hillis and i apologize for that. so, overhead, please. at the planning department's public scoping meeting for 33 -- >> you can turn that over. i think -- >> i don't have anything up there. i just wanted to make sure -- >> ok. all right. >> usually i'm not that up to date. planning -- speaker after speaker required that the planning department included a community alternative that eliminates the developers' unwanted retail office complex and provided housing for middle income families t. community asked for a zoning compliant al tefrn tiff that would provide for all residential use of the site and build housing in the space furthest for the retail

and a new office uses and would have the maximum number of residential units allowed by the zoning on the site. this alternative would retain all historic landscape green space adjacent to laurel and [inaudible]. you've seen some of these. the zoning compliant alternative is substantially the same as the [inaudible] except the latter adds a mayfair building. the planning department not only ignored the community request, but it generate add so-called code conforming alternative in the draft e.i.r. that has new uses allowable only if conditional use permits were applied. no such conditional use permits have been grants so the al tern is not compliant with existing zoning. it was simply a misleading alternative. it was at the public scoping

media that the community first learned of this historic significance 359333. information with held of the developer and the planning department for at least the past three years. in the subsequent draft e.i.r., the planning department managed to develop and study eight different plans. two business the developers, six preservation alternatives but refused to address community's request. and yet the draft e.i.r. takes four full pages, pages 7.1 to 7.4, to list the 26 departments, organizations and companies as well as 76 named experts who helped prepare the draft e.i.r. behind the scenes how many hundreds of other people worked on the project? and yet they were unable to provide what the community had asked for. so, the community did what was beyond either the capability or the intention of the planning department. and it was mentioned last week that we're still working on it.

we'll get it to you. thank you very much and happy holidays. >> thank you. happy holidays to you and thank you for the e-mail also. ms. hester? >> sue hester. up until now, most of the projects that come for prop. k exceptions on shadow have been a joint hearing by the planning commission at rec park where the shadow [inaudible] had a hearing and a vote by rec park and about by the planning commission and then after that, the planning commission went to consideration of the project. i think that is a good procedure because it pulls out as prop k did the whole idea of testimony on the shadows. two hours ago, one hour ago,

the rec park commission heard the issue that is number 13 on your agenda. and they heard the shadow impact and they were explicit discussions among the rec park commissioners that the only thing that was relevant was not the project, but the shadows of the project. when you don't have a biforindicated hearing like you do when you have a joint hearing and you have it all lumped together with a through e, and don't only have one hearing, you are required to muddle the whole issue. you only have testimony -- little bit of testimony on the shadows and mostly it is about the merits of the project. i am asking you to consider what the instruction should be for procedure about how the planning commission handles the

project that has prop k findings absolutely required before you were even allowed to consider the project. that's a law. so if you call up the project and have it all muddled together, i don't think that comports with the intention or the language. i'm asking you to consider how you're going to deal with 13a, b, c, de, when you have it and probably i asked c be pulled out separately. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. laura foote from m.b. action. i don't know how many of you have watched what has been happening in minneapolis. but they got rid of single-family home-only zoning and they have made a plan to

move to triplexes everywhere across their city. and it's a huge step. i'm going to be e-mailing you an amazing slate article but i just wanted to read to you some of the highlights. minneapolis will be l become the first major u.s. city to end single-family home zoning, a policy that has done as much as any to entrench segregation, high housing costs and sprawl as the american urban paradigm over the past century. large swaths of our city are exclusively zoned for single-family homes so unless you have the ability to build a very large hoemz on a very large lot, you can't live in the neighborhood. minneapolis mayor jacob fray told me this week single family home zoning was devised as a legal way to keep black americans and other minorities from moving into certain neighborhoods and it still functions as an effective barrier today.

abolishing restrictive zoning, the mayor said, was part of a general consensus that the city ought to begin to mend the damage wrought in pursuit of segregation. humidity versety, which nearly everyone in the staunchly liberal city would say is a good thing. only goes as far as the housing stock. i'm going to read that last one again. humidity versety, which nearly everyone in this staunchly liberal city would say is a good thing only goes as far as the housing stock. a lot of legislation comes out of this body. and i'm also speaking to all the nerds watching sfgov tv, hopefully planning staff, this was lead by a planning process that originated in their planning department, there was a lot of out reach in the community that said we're going to have a larger conversation. we're not going to do as much project by project, just

whatever's coming at our face right now. we're going to do something big. we are capable of large and dramatic change to get us on a better course. and we, too, are capable of large and dramatic change to get us on a better course. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards. >> just one thought. i understand possibly where the single family zoning has kept people out of neighborhoods. we had the excelsior action plan last week and i look at the statistics around who owns single family homes in the city, their neighborhoods were previously, i guess, excluded like irish and things like in the sunset. when you look at the actual ownership now, it's majority nonwhite. so, i'm having -- you know, whatever the origin of the sing family zoning are, at least in san francisco, others than say

pacific heights a few other neighborhoods that are exclusively white, there's majority-minority ownership in a lot of neighborhoods. so the other comment, no. the other comment is -- i mentioned this last week. triplexs are a far cry from six lots being combined together which we're trying to do here with sb50 and creating a castro theater in a neighborhood of little bungalows. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm interested in ms. clark's comments. the only question i would ask f you present the facts later to check the size of the city. it's a lot of land including the average lot size in which a single family home occurs. in which cities lot sizes are far, far larger than san francisco given topography and history. in those cities, you'll sproebl an lafrj -- an average lot size of three quarters to an

acre. i'm just asking that question because you could definitely undermine -- underpin your arguments very effectively. i don't need an answer. i'm just asking you to have that next time available in order to make sense, given the lot constraint, etc., we have here. thank you. >> ok. thanks. as part of our -- when we have the housing discussion, it would be good to hear what other cities are doing. maybe what distinguishes us from other cities. because, you know, i think there's good points about the excelsior but there are neighborhoods that are extensively more dense than rh1 and there are some like you mentioned where the lot sizes aren't 25 by 100, but are rh1. i think it is a good debate and we should have it and talk about it. commissioner fong? >> it's interesting that ms. foote brought this up and just going on the website here and looking at where houses, average size and cost, that is

1400 square foot home for $139,000. but it's sitting on a very large lot as commissioner moore point out with a front yard and side yard and another side yard and backyard. so there may be reasons why that sprawl for those size. and i think we're all clear that minneapolis is not an apples-to-apples for san francisco. but i do appreciate you bringing this idea up and i think your main underlying point is something large early can happen in something broader in thought, sweeping can happen. i agree with that. >> commissioners, i'm going to request -- >> we're having a recess -- >> come on. it's the holidays. >> a deeper conversation about this item, it is not on your agenda. >> did you already sign off? no, ok. we'll put it on. >> we will. it's on your advanced calendar, in fact. commissioners, that will place us under your regular calendar. item five was pulled off of consent for case number 2018

conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president hillis and planning commissioners. ashley lindsey, planning department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new mackerel wireless telecommunications wireless facility at 88 king street. it proposes to install six new panel antennas, 12 new radio units, one new microwave antenna and one g.p.s. antenna. all antennas will be located on the rooftop behind screened walls and will be painted to match the existing building, ancillary equipment will be located inside the rooftop penltshouse equipment and won't be visible from public view. it's located in the downtown south beach residential district in an area that's mixing character with high-density residential and supporting commercial and institutional uses. the immediate neighborhood includes can one to four-story mixed use office to the north,

three to 10 story mixed use office to the west a series of four story residential and supporting commercial properties to the east and south beach park and at&t park to the south. the project is on the roof of the southern of two 16-story high towers containing 230 condominiums at 88 king street with frontage at king street and front street. the wireless siding guidelines identify different zoning districts and uses for the sight of wireless facilities. based on a zoning and land use, the proposed wireless facility is a location preference by site. mixed used buildings and density districts making it a desider location. to date, we have received one phone call in opposition of the project whose concerns were related to the effects of radiofrequency emissions. in closing, the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the wireless siding guidelines and the objective and policies of the general plan t.s project exhibits overall design that is

compatible with character and stability of the neighborhood and constitutes a beneficial service. this concludes my mention and i'm available for any questions. >> all right. thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commission. my name is jeremy jordan with precision site development. representing sprint. we've worked to design the site to be completely stealth and screened, to meet all the requirements. we also did the report that the d.p.h. approved. we do have bill hammet with hammet medicine here today with regards to radiofrequency of the project. the site is part of a forest relocation project.

sprint has another site in the area located at a pier, which is being decommissioned due to redevelopment. so, this is a critical site to continue service to at&t park as well as the bay bridge and surrounding customers and emergency services in the area. if there is any questions, i'm here and can answer 'em. thank you. >> thank you. we'll take public comment first . is there public comment on this temperature? -- on this item? >> good afternoon. my name is malache barate. i'm owner. one of the units at at&t king. and i have basically this whole thing about working with sprint

from a h.o.a. perspective and coming up with contract and a proposal. this all of this took me by surprise and a number of residents, particularly residents on the top floor who have the most concerns. it was always a surprise. this was done in a way that was opaque. i have another person who lives on the top floor. donna paisley who can attest to that. so our concerns are twofold. the first concern is about the health risks. there are a lot of studies that can, you know, depending on the study you want to choose and the perspective you have, you can pick a study and bolster your point of view. there are studies done by a professor at berkeley that continuously shows that it is a huge risk with this kind of equipment being close to us. this equipment is going to be

on our rooftops. we are on the top floor of the adjacent building within the same complex. this affects the people who are living right below you. there are no -- as far as i know, there are no devices to protect the electromagnetic radiation that is there and the main spoinlts that it is an evolving field. i mean, you just look at the cell phones, you get -- you get different studies every year saying it causes cancer. it doesn't cause cancer. you should leave it by your bedside table or not leave it by a bedside table when you're sleeping. right now the recommendations are switching off your wireless routers at night. my concern is with this kind of stuff, this proposal was pushed through in an opaque way by our bore. residents are not fully aware. in fact, i asked the board for

more information and was very reluctantly given to me. i still have not seen a study that was supposed to be done to show that it was commissioned by the board. we didn't get it done and i have been asking for it. we haven't gotten it yet. we have some paperwork yesterday saying release of liabilities before they give us a study and that study cannot be shared with anybody. so my concerns are about the health and opaqueness in which this was done. the second thing that i want to point out is that i don't think the residents got a chance to look at the contract that we're doing with sprint and i'm a landlord myself. i have in the south bay and i have never seen a contract that's so out of proportion. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >> ok. thank you very much. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners?

commissioner koppel? >> as far as i know, this is an extremely regulated field. we often see these antennas and systems on our consent calendar, almost -- mostly all the time. i highly doubt that any shortcuts are being taken or anything is being proposed that would be unhealthy to any of the residents. i make a motion to approve. >> second. can i just ask staff a question on this? so, you know, i know we're limited in what we can look at and this and the health impacts is something we can't take into account. but the project -- or the tenants can ask sprint to come out and measure the impacts in their apartment, right? they can make that request? >> correct. if the project were to be approved, tenants have the opportunity to work with sprint, to have an engineer to

come out and test the existing emissions on site and then if the site is installed they can also do a second testing. >> so, they can do a before and after. >> correct. >> folks that live in the building can take advantage of that because it is your right. but we're limited to the land use aspect of this in our deliberations. >> commissioners, theres a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion -- [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, it will place us on item 11, modernizing long range data analysis, informational presentation. >> good afternoon. we are pleased to present to

you today the data analysis modernization initiative or the luisa program is the acronym, which is an initiative of city-wide divisions analysis group or a.i.g. the purpose of this initiative is to create an information system and analytic capacity that we need to effectively address san francisco's complex long-range planning challenges. and in doing so, we want to be able to catch up with an advance of our professional practice and standards in terms of data production and analytic capacity and meet the expectations of the public, yourselves, decision-maker, ourselves as professionals to provide data access and ease of use to this information. so, we hope the luisa program will replace in slow and manual processs that we have to go through now to -- with more faster and automated ways of producing data to make data easier to use, for better

visualization, understanding and insight to create much richer information products and services that are greater value to you. and to reduce the response time in responding to these inquiries and as well to make collaboration easier. our goal today is to describe this nicker tiff -- initiative in a little more detail for you and seek your ongoing support. this initiative also featuring more and more prominently on our work program because it is an effort that in and of itself takes resources and time in additions to the daily ongoing production of data. so you are familiar with a lot of the individual products that we've been producing for many years. whether it's the housing, monitoring and inventory products or the various job and business reporting we do such as the commerce and industry report. our quarterly pipeline reports. a lot of the 2d mapping and simulations that we do. socioeconomic and demographic profiles and i've pernlsly been here to present to you our most recent growth capacity assessments and some of our city-wide analyses.

and all tolled, individually these are -- these are significant efforts, but they're all very integrated and what sals not very apparent is how integral and essential all these data products are to informing that of sister agencies in the city and planning our infrastructure, our services for the future. but that of regional and state and even federal agencies as well. all this analysis forms the backbone of all transportation modeling, all e.i.r.s analysis, our new -- you know, all the analysis we have to do regarding sustainability and resiliency moving forward, studies and basic day-to-day land use assessments answer site assessments on how much we can build and where and what different trade-offs we face w. that, i'll hand it over to scott edmundson, senior planner in our a.i.g. group that is spearheading this initiative.

>> thank you, josh. as you know, day analysis is difficults for any group and a fair consensus that eighth and city-wide do over the years. our long range data analysis and reporting is known for high quality, a good parcel land use data that many cities don't haves in which took a considerate effort to produce. and for reporting rich graphic presentation as well. and yet we can always do better and we really need to do it now. planning challenges are increasing in complexity and that increases the need for better data, better analysis and better visualization. and unfortunately the recent

g.i.s. industry trend have created a new tounlt actually do better. with easier data access, automations, 3d analysis and visualization, artificial intelligence and smarter applications. this is really a sea change moment in this field that i've been watching for the last 20 years and this capacity is finally ready for primetime. we need to seize it to stay current and deliver the planning that you need and san francisco needs, that we need and this luisa program is designed to seize that opportunity. our existing challenges like those of any analytic group arrives from kind of the installed legacile toos and work flows and processes that we have and just the demands of every day beyond just getting the job done. this involves data sets that are difficult to create, maintain and use together. data that's cumbersome to access or requires expertise to do so.

understanding insights that require really expert graphic skills and cartographic skills to present clearly and well. data capacity that's different to generate and use across geography and time from the parcel to the region and down again. and again, getting to that last point, really sufficient time to do the up front work to develop the data and keep current within new products and develop the new -- apply those new work flows to really get the job done in faster, better ways. so, the characteristics of these new tools, fortunately, are a partial anecdote to these legacy ills and characteristics include authoritative data that is easier to generate access in use, powerful 2d and 3d analysis in mapping that generates clear spatial understanding. photorealistic and 3d visualization that communicates more quickly to everyone. automation that makes tasks faster and easier.

cross device and browser-based uses that provide access anywhere, anytime. stakeholder engagement and collaboration that's easier and more productsive. taken together, modern g.i.s. and the direction of modern g.i.s. is creating democratized data with smart decision tools so the end users without technical training and experience, which most of the time is most of us, can actually use the tools and participate effectively. and finally, the trend these days is really to go beyond just individual tools that do a little task here and there. but really to begin to embrace and streamline the whole urban planning work flow with integrative tool sets that work from data collection to development to analysis, design and options assessment to collaboration, communication and ultimately to decisions for better plans and better cities.

this year's components of the luisa program which is a multiyear idea at this point, include the use of tools and services at s.f. we already own through the enterprise license that we renewed this past july from city-wide. and involves training of some core staff in modern g.i.s. tools and best practices. and then the use of that additional knowledge to modernize the heart of eighth's work program, which is really this growth policy analysis work flow that includes growth capacity estimation which is the supply side of the land economy and allocating regional growth projections for s.f. to subcity areas like the traffic analysis zones that the transportation authority uses. and that is the demand side. and finally, the other part of this is developing those integrated core data sets that we need for easier use together that are now produced

relatively independently and those probably familiar to you in terms of the land-use database, the housing databases, jobs databases, building databases and the pipeline database of current project proposals. so, with this program, the results that we hope will be a set of improvements for production and use for us, and you and public and staff alike, that will include the core staff, using modern g.i.s. tools and best practices over time, using these integrated, authoritative data sets that work across scales, working with 3d city base map, using integrated faster production passes which is really the focus this year. streamlined data inputs and outputs for any uses but in particular for our work with regional bay area -- bay area metro and the four-year work

flow for the regional planning, sustainability planning where our data is a core input to that process and we get data out of that that's important and useful and we work quite's closely with the c.t.a., the county transportation authority and the county wide transportation model where our long-range land-use forecast has been the core components of the inputs to that for the last 20 years. in addition, we would be producing richer web applications for data reporting analysis including dash boards and answering questions more quickly. your questions more quickly. overall, we create the basis and direction for foundation of new long-range integrated growth policy and management capacity. from partial city to region, from existing to proposed, to 30-year projections to ultimate capacity and have an integrated view of that, that is easy to

navigate report, query update and visualize. over time this program would expand to the rest of eighth's work which are the monitoring reports and various ant these we need to do and then beyond that to all the city-wide work flows and stf and city-wide and who knows how far we go beyond that. it is important to keep in mind that for all the benefits on the table as potential and promise, none of them are silver bullets. difficulties will continue to the inherent complexity of data and analysis, privacy and security issues will continue as well. there may be some new challenges that arise from new tools that really require a little more train on the part of users and we might need to embeds that training component into the new, new products themselves. yet the new tools of this sea change opportunity in modern g.i.s. position us best to meet the complexity and the growing complexity of modern long range

planning for san francisco. with that i'd like to show you a couple of little slides. kind of the launching off point for a lot of this work is that our world is in 3d but much of our planning and planning tools are in 2d so the new direction is really to go in this 3d direction. this is an example of a 3d model san francisco with our parcel land use categories laid on top of the buildings themselves and you can see it just pops out at you very easily. we have the capacity to integrate various different data. this is a set -- so the location of some high capacity transit lines with some potential locations that feature housing and a richer analysis and richer presentation, shadow impact analysis can be done much more easily. and we've got -- we are testing right now with this r.g.s.

urban platform really that embraces the large part of the urban planning work flow and you can see here the city with a set of pipeline projects and plan areas embedded there and the little pins show the pipeline projects and the plan areas and as you zoom in, you can get closer and closer view and you can kind of start seeing the statuses of the different plan areas or pipelines. the skhek approved, bulldozers under construction, the question mark is under review. and you can actually drill down to individual projects or individual plans themselves and you can see them, spin around them and look for locations and look at different views and drill down into the data itself and get a much richer understanding of what's going on with that project and in particular potentially change data, etc. so those are very quick glimpse of where we're going and what we hope to start delivering and

working with over time and available for questions. >> all right. thank you. let's see if there is any public comments on this item. any public comment? ms. hester? >> sue hester. i was listening for where is the public comes in in this process. i am asking the planning commission and the staff what input and what are you going to get -- solicit from the public. paom that do elaborate data models often forget who they're supposed to serve. the data models are supposed to serve the general public.

and it's very normal for the planning departments to do ever more complicated tasks and the people who have to use those reports are not factored in. we have a -- in the public has a range of skills, some people are older and some people have age 20, a lot of data experience because they are trained in it. so how are the public members supposed to use the data that is being provided. one of the things that i would say that was a couple pages that flashed through on the screen is a 15-minute walk in san francisco is very different if it's up a [inaudible] or has a barricade in it like for the bay bridge. and i found issues like that which are real to the people

who live he