Larson sfwr sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting madam clerk madam clerk, any announcements . Questions all electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the october 27th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. All right. Thank you so much call item one. On ordinance for 10 61 to change the sidewalk at the westerly at silver and portions of Rearview Mirror here and we have oh, possible if dpw and then i building a representative from the School District to comment mr. Harry from the department of public works this is a standard sidewalks legislation louis a drop off in front of the willie l. Brown middle school went through the standard calibrations and city planning as approved the task and Fire Department so all the major groups have agreed on the legislation and moving forward to the board any other questions i object to answer them. This is clean and straightforward representative from the School District to make a short presentation thank you, mr. Rooir. Hello. Hello. Are you speaking on this item or in 3789. Cooperative you dont have is a Public Comment. A School District representative. No general contractor give me a minute youll be able to speak. Colleagues i dont know if you have any concerns lets go ahead and open up for Public Comment open up for Public Comment is open people have two minutes to speak and soft chime 30 seconds remaining sir if you want to come up now is your opportunity and again, any member of the public can speak. Thank you, welcome. Im not sure i dont have is a comment noted sure. Are you in favor. Thats a comment wed like to take it thank you. Any other member that want to speech in favor or against this project. Im francisco i filled out my card i think anyone chairs a meeting like this they have to respect the audience or the people who come here following some protocol this is an important issue not to be taken lightly it is a School Millions of dollars have been spent it was an openly and is opening took place 9 of the manners of the americans with disabilities act was in patrolling place we have dpw and some other person didnt know why hes here but essential here and in favor of that so how can we spend millions of Million Dollars of dollars state of the art school the higher principal that apparently jumped ship thats not the point out today, the point is this city has to abide by the americans with disabilities act i was a project manager when i worked at the presidio of San Francisco i took all the classes with at depth of the embroider i know something about it so supervisors thats not take things ashley make comments like straightforward english this is not about english this is about technicalities this is about standards, which leads tomorrows ethics thank you very much. Members of the commission Public Comment is closed. Is clotted colleagues get to motion to i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation thank you very much looks like we have unanimous support so that motion carries unanimously thank you. All right. Marking call u call item 2. An ordinance amending the planning code by the sustainability fee and the transit impact fee and declaring the homeless shelters declarations. Colleagues weve heard this after making several amendments we were required to renotice the changes to the legislation weve been notified by the Planning Department of technical amendments they would like for the committee to clarify a change we made last week we have mr. Corey here joining us from the Planning Department here to speak on that issue corey id like to call you up. Thank you supervisor cowen and supervisors corey with the go planning the president those are not substantive but clarification the formulate in the document handed to you all is the same formulate as the last Land Use Commission hearing ill go through them page and line and i object to answer any questions on page 9 lines 9 to 11 clarified grairt the way the language was drafted whether or not you were begin for gashth action a application was filed before a date or after a certain date as you may know they have multiple application you could have a application breaking and entering to make the language clear the intent that certain projects with application after certain date will not be subject to any grandfathering that is all the language that it does and on page 11 line 6 through 25 and then page 12 lines 6 through 17 we added a new subsection with a fee methodology as you recall you created a tiered fee for Residential Projects essentially a higher fee for any component of a residential project representing the one dwelling unit and above unfortunately, we didnt have a method for the one hundred units and above so the methodology we created a proportional methodology in the dwelling units at one hundred and above 25 percent of the dwelling units the higher rate will be applied to the entire rate for the project that includes thienz lobbies and hallways and other dwelling units essentials we just want the table to support that calculation and made that distinct and not additives so the higher squeegees and rents will pay both rates thats the clarification language and lastly on page 20 lines 6 and 7 we proposed amending the faebd looking at the feasibility by neighborhood and changed that to ear the definition of neighborhood is difficult and different for different people and adams the language to the extent possible im available to answer any questions. Thank you very much thats it on the staff presentation when id like to do is go to direct to Public Comment i see a few people in the audience Public Comment is open a reminder 2 minutes. Public comment . Oh, thank you. Im sorry, i just got the speakers so first up calling names . Thank you. Youre welcome. Good afternoon, members david with the Hospital Council im here again with the members of our council that stated shoulder or shoulder to shoulder unified in our position that the citys elimination and removal of the none for profit hospitals is Public Policy with Kaiser Permanente and Chinese Hospital are dignity and st. Francis and youve heard from c pmc several put if this ordinance is adapted will decrease the resources for hospitals to do their Charitable Giving and spread out and increase the costs of health care for hospitals and their members the commercially insured and retirees and all those categories so we ask that the exception be restored and the ordinance thank you thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors i guess my handwriting is not great abby with the sfrarns hospital im here 0 urge you for a run statement for the hospital transportation together the hospitals in San Francisco serve the majority by far San Francisco residents regardless of their ability to pay we worked together on a lot of the Community Benefits work clgdz the Chinatown Health Fair st. Francis focuses on the health felt residents some of the poorest and most Difficult Health outcomes of the residents in the tenderloin each the hospitals have a very focused Community Benefit work and together we very the San Francisco height partner that has a retreat last week and look at it looked how to improve the health of the vulnerable across the city and reinstate the hospital exemption into the ordinance thank you. Thank you next elizabeth. Hello supervisors elizabeth from kaifrp thank you for having us here i wanted to ask on behalf of the Kaiser Permanente that we reinstate the hospital exemption modern Hospital Construction requires and were happy happy to fulfill that our members have single private rooms within the hospitals your hospital have a larger footprint but not having more patients within the hospitals that means theyre not janitor more trips with more people that is related to the seismic standards and the quality of patient within the hospital as well as the technology load within a patients room is quite substantial all the hospital rooms have large monitor so the physicians and patient can enter fats without the physician making a round of applause there is quite a few of the equipment and a larger room than a previous hospital were in support of Transportation Demand Management Program we support many, many programs within the thank you walking and biking and commuter ride sharers r ryder and other Health Systems chiu our mission bay wire working a Transportation Plan with uflsz and other institutions so we dont create mover traffic in the area i will say on behalf of the cookies would our hospital and our own hospital we keep the exception in thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors im stuart fong at chievens hospital they support the run statements of the unfortunate hospitals in the equipment thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors dee dee workman from the chamber of commerce the chamber of commerce and our partners are really very confront with the legislation as amended in the last Land Use Commission with the exception of removing the hospitals from the charitable exception we feel strongly the hospitals should fall under the charitable exception k exception theyre the grandmother of all Charitable Services provider and as youve heard multiple times give the seismic retrofitting process they have too often stand the sites not expanding the patient load their employee numbers or the impacts on transportation so we feel strongly the hospitals should remain under the charitable exception the charm has been working with a broad range of groups looking for and trying to find new fivengd u fund to renovate, upgrade your Transportation System were a partner but weve supported you know the transportation bonds of l f and other federal, state, and local and taking the which i shouldnt programs is a departure and a bit of a breach of faith we urge you to put the hospitals back in under the charitable exception thank you. So supervisors normally when you get an agenda there is also legislative report and i spoke on one of the items and i got a report of all the legislative reports open every single item if you look at this agenda item it does not go too 0 deep with imperial data i dont know about the nonprofit hospitals but the sutter hospitals owe laugh money to the city billion dollars and that was discussed in this commission so thats not arley take all the hospitals under one umbrella but take to task an organization like the sutter hospital that has failed san franciscans having said that, there are a number of progressions out this that talk about Affordable Housing and when you go in that to look at the blueprints we find for example, linked to producing 5 kind scrapers and you supervisors does nothing of the high density buildings around the embarcadero and thats wrong so i dont we have the the city has we is a have some attorneys i think you all should represent the people because i know our board of supervisors has failed to represent the people of San Francisco. Thank you. We have many matter with the political distributors and distribution of president fullness should be removed from the mediation so clear up with selfnature sincerely of one wisdom with the working resolve the holy meeting of one destiny and selfnature that having a passion of feelings for relationship for the influence one is wisdom of selfnature of the combablts and cultural are part of the nature that could solve a nature of improvement and steps. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you for speaking out on this item. First colleagues may i have a motion on the technical amendments by the Planning Department thank you motion and second by my colleagues an unanimous motion that is approved thank you. Is there a motion well, ill back up colleagues, any discussion on the underlying. Supervisor wiener. Thank you, madam chair and i do believe we should put this out of committee but ill raise one clarification before we do at the last Committee Hearing and this for the latter part of it we were voting commissioner avalos voting and supervisor kim and the only issue we voted on where potentially the positions of commenting a different outcome is on the hospital exception a 2 to one i voted to keep it in and so before we put this out i think that would be good to know that accurately reflected the views of the committee fine and if not can i have a motion 0 supervisor kim if commissioner avalos vote to remove the exemption is consistent with her point of view. I think ive expressed at Committee Meeting my concern for hospitals that i think do a lot of medical and charity care and their ability to pay tsif pear for communities that dont have access to care at this time im not prepared to support this amendment i talked with the City Attorney i apologize we called and left a voicemail not able to reach it was this more than he complete thinks to vet the different concepts will work i had a misunderstanding at Land Use Commission an moped that was why a delay i, of course, want to be able to work with the Committee Workers and supervisor cohen and the members. So first place through the chair conceptually to make a motion to reinstate the hospital motion as previously drafted would i vote or noted vote. Ill not feel comfortable at this time. So based on that ill not make the motion but i will make a motion to forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation for the november 3rd board meeting. All right. Great. Thank you very much motion has been made and second required lets take a roll call vote on this motion. On the motion to remedy the ordinance as amended supervisor kim. Supervisor wiener. Supervisor cohen. Madam chair you have 3ize. This is passed to the representation to the full board of supervisors. Item 3 a resolution commissioners, on that motion interim controls in the transit plan area to restrict the size and height of signs within 200 feet and visual from the existing planning park and to restrict the signs in other areas. Thank you very much supervisor kim is the author of this item and i will give her the mike at this time. Thank you our office is still conducting emotions between stakeholders on this very issue were requesting continuance two week continuance at Land Use Commission and well, thank you very much that sounds great before we vote on the motion lets opening it up for Public Comment any members of the public that want to speak on item number 3 please come up. Okay. So no members of the public. Item speak on item 3 Public Comment is closed. At this time. And colleagues, we can take this motion to continue that item before us to. November 2nd. November 2nd thank you without objection. Art without objection that item passes thank you, madam clerk call items 34 and 5. Ordinances for the Planning Department and zoning map to create the jewish home located on silver avenue and allowing an increase in height with proportion. Thank you commissioner avalos is the author of this item i believe we have legislative aide ms. Shaw. Ms. Shaw from commissioner avalos before you we have to jeopardy plan amendment and the ordinance for the jewish special use district to allow for the expansion of that Residential Care facility in the excelsior located in the intersection of Mission Street and expanding the entire city block it has been serving the frail residents of the excelsior for over hundred years to expand their facilities with living space and other supportive uses weve been pleased with the Community Engagement on this process and worked collaborative with our office and neighbors in order to address the concerns of this type of development and make changes in order to better integrate the facility with the fabric of the neighborhood on Mission Street and along the corridor we hope to have your support so the jewish home can continue to serve the communities most needy and vulnerable both items were heard in august and received a unanimous vote and mr. Chang will answer any questions you might have as well as representatives from the jewish home. I think the next speaker will be tina changing and followed up by daniel from the jewish home is daniel here and ms. Chang. Thank you good afternoon chronicling and supervisors those are the amendments to the general plan and zoning map amendment to establish the jewish home of San Francisco the special use district the subject property coffers 9 acres with 5 buildings the may West Building as shown in the red arrows to be demolished in the instead a construction of two New Buildings the buildings 19 are 200 and 60 thousand square feet in size and providing approximately 200 and 10 Residential Care facility up to two hundred and 45 residents the home will create a square a new development it is buildings on the jewish campus to have a vied variability of uses by membership excuse me. O include medical officers and outpatient and focusing and salons and other centers. The home will provide up to 48 hundred square feet along the Mission Street frontage intended to activate the street to achieve the goals as described it creates a special use that requires a zoning map and planning code text amendment the amendment will simply remove the shading at the subject property for the height one of the zoning map amendments to add a boundary to the ftes as shown by the red doted line. The Second Amendment to 9 maps will include a plan map to the height and bulk where it currently shows a health and bulk of 50 x. And finally the planning code text amendment will add a section to establish the jewish home the sud will allow the nonresidential uses within the district and allow a smaller floor within the special use district the above images are the proposed construction that is the admitting frontage that provides a presence along Mission Street activating and providing existing square feet part of building is set back to better respect the neighbors height and bulk. This last image is the the exist landscaping and is also lower in height to the surrounding residential uses that concludes my presentation. Ill be happy to answer any questions ill be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We dont have any questions id like to invite our colleague up to offer information on this item. Good afternoon. My name is daniel ruth the wanting ceo of the jewish home in San Francisco and held that post for the past 13 years next slide, please my expression of thanks our mission to enrich the jewish and nonjewish other jewish home provides services for over hundred and 45 years and serve the residents and patients on any given day the jewish home is the largest private nonprofit of nursing home care in the state and of the people that we serve on overwhelmingly amount of individuals on the medical program we are rated as a 5 star facility for quality of care the highest possible next slide, please. More many years the jewish home ran into a deficit in 2012 the state cut our medical reimbursements by thirty percent bans our hard work with the state we were successful in 2014 in reinstating our reimbursement rate for medical and residents on a grord basis, however, we were left with an 18 million retroactive liability from the deep cuts that that experience alone underscores the yooush home to respond to the demographic facts and circumstances those include won the tidal wave of aging baby boomers and two the recognition those baby boomers have different need and expectations and demands from the prior generations and prefer to live at home or a residential type environmentalist and 3 the urge need to change the jewish final model to reduce the shining federal and state reimbursements as well unsustainable be levels of philanthropy and had the need to address the seismically challenged and updated centers that doesnt reflect the current standards so what are the results simply stated the proposed project is advances you are mission but allows us to remain in the excelsior district to serve an additional 200 and 48 residents on our campus in addition, we know that many older adults want to remain at home but it means at the suffer from depression and lonelyness and challenging for caregivers to take them to the myriad of appointments throughout the most next slide, please. So we are proposing a revolutionary new model one we call the square to support older adults their family members and caregivers that want to continue to live at home and come to one local to have their social and medical and other needs met, in fact, did muth commissions found our mission will create the accessibility of primary care among the citys growing population next slide, please in short that enhanced assisted living and memory care in the square allows us to better serve a bigger psychopath of members and involves a robin hill model the new uses help to subsidize our medicals residents and better insult the homes from future budget cuts thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Rose presenter our work and service to the community lets supervisor wiener your name is on the roster. Thank you. All right. Lets go ahead and take Public Comment at this time Public Comment is open. Anybody who lives in district 9 and 11 passes by the jewish home and if youre more or less my age it is well known that this institution has done an excellent job whats important for this city to understand is that over 51 percent of our population are seniors and their noting not treated well and the city should look forward to an institution like the jewish home and there are a few others that the private foundations are kate so our seniors special those who are in ssi spend 90 percent of their income on rent and not taken care of. What the Jewish Community has 38 they have rich people i call them rich people who can if they follow the torah can setback monies charity care my family is tied to the Jewish Community they preserve the torah in a particular country for three hundred years so im like some people that think whatever my affection i appreciate what theyre doing for others in extending the health to others thank you very much. For my money matter the principle once a original destiny are allowed the responsive pathways for making successful destiny for failed relationships for the transient flow leading a new way of virtue and accomplishment our wellbeing and personal reasoning are for holy pretends and wisdom one can apply tenant using everything for success and supervision and shatter decisions for Creative Action for prisoners of happening king virtual that fulfills the special force and well balance of harmonies for greater production of virtue of establishment holy nature to bring firm and secure of ones course of well planned and holy teachings and for these people and recognizing to be holy a principle of a superior freedom of united unit of the holy methodologies so like dragons and like horse expressing strongly great height with the process and at the end and enforcement for the virtue and defying if i had planning and second so traveling for true selfnature and for the california probation of the production and structure and order nature advantage for the society and policies of for the numerous people in populations. Wow. Next speaker. Excuse me. Im a little bit horse can you hear me. We can. Im Marlene Norman wearing to hats today, im representing the Vice President of the Outer Mission merchants better known as obama are im Vice President and also worked at the jewish home i he was a social worker on the psychiatrist unit i reassigned but within 6 months i returned to the jewish home to return as a volunteer since ive been doing i have a profound appreciation for the home on the cuttingedge of elderly care with its ma many programs with the alzheimers and units it serves the vunld members of the population im advocating for the proposed expansion of home ive tenant 3 Community Meetings to address the Community Concerns the first meeting was held at the home and substantially representatives came to a general meeting and district 11 would you be able meeting i believe as the home will increases not only the residents population that will always be reaching out to other members for the community including elderly caregivers and in conclusion i urge you to vote in favor the legislative expansion while showing some people are in denial about climatic change of climatic change but no one ca can a say that have not grow in the meeting of those needs thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Fran Ginsburg and retired nurse sole practitioner and worked for Kaiser Permanente and managed care for Kaiser Permanente members of the jewish home and probably about every other nursing home in the city and daily city i can say personally and professionally that the jewish home is a very special place ive been interested in older folks since i was a younger folk and now im won the way past baby boomer age i can personally is a this is a place that needs to be and needs to grow and although i would prefer to die at home and live my last years in my own house as bruno heights my he next choice is the jewish home thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon im arlene as a Long Time Service volunteer form board chair of the zuckerberg jewish home and now chair the Jewish Foundation im a true believer in the mission and work of the home to enrich the quality of life of older adults our mission is worthy serving the underserved senior population and needed service in San Francisco the campus is up to date we understand the needs for the judiciously home to renovate, upgrade their campus please support this amendment to help insure the jewish home can serve the senior population thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is a dawn im the parrot of anybody church in the excelsior district of San Francisco i as pastor the governor bodies support the jewish home expansion and urge the city to approve approve this important project besides servicing the seniors they also partner with our church and distribute free groceries to those who are insecure in the neighborhood feeding three hundred families every saturday and their incredible partners we urge you from the bottom of my heart to support this jewish home for the entire excelsior neighborhood thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is a steve i didnt the executive director of Excelsior Action Group im here to express the supports for the approval of the general plan in the planning code that allows for the current expansion of the jewish home e a g is a great supporter and we believe that those amendments will allow the expansion of a much needed and supported resource in our community and add more density and aesthetically improve the character of the corridor we have exceeded the standards and expectation we like to regard ourselves as Community Members and support the implementation of the current plan and therefore support the proposed amendments that brings up this to fruition thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi, im dixie im and my husband dr. Len walker move forward to San Francisco 20 years ago a retired clinic fist and and a i was a most of the mother of 7 we had rich spiral perhaps at 87 my husband lift the bar but 6 months ago the state present challenges we county foresee and plan for or yield and len has claksdz and end up at the jewish home for a short time and long term care, he saw jewish home as a miracle for our dark lives the administrators are skilled but our advertiser was keep up me husband lived for the physicals therapy in the gym i got to sing high head off around the piano treat him with kindness and good sense of humor do ask me how they do that incidentally im getting used to the sound of tagalog i wonder how many projects youre presented that have as their core motivate plan old fathers service i encourage you to make their plans operational as a baby boomer age thank you. Any other members of the public colleagues Public Comment is closed. At this time and colleagues the item is up for discussion. Supervisor wiener i see your name on the roster. Thank you, madam chair i just want to thank everybody that made this possible and strongly supportive ill anytime it is personal this an institution that served many, many years and all are welcome at the jewish home for the an executive branch jewish clientele a large Jewish Population of seniors cared for huge i humanely and with respect at the intersection institution we know we have a growing senior population with so many needs in terms of making sure that people are getting the care they require to be healthy and have terrific lives and know that families need assistance in caring for the seniors in their lives who when theyre struggling to tell you provide the care at home so the jewish home has been a Wonderful Community institution for so many years and allow to continue and increase the services is it provides i will also is that the aspect of this plan that will allow for seniors who are no did living at the senior home to come to a day i was exist to learn about that practicum we have a lot of seniors at home but sometimes become isolated at home and the more incidents to be in the community to be with other people to be engaged in various activities the healthier theyll be and good for the residents of the jewish home having people coming to spend the day it creates more of a beehive of activity and helps to keep everybody healthier this is a wonderful, wonderful project i sponsoring support it i move we forward items four and five to the full board of supervisors with a with a positive recommendation. Supervisor kim and do you have a few remarks. Just want to concur with what supervisor wiener said im happy to support that this is great to have a health write project to come before us and everybodys support. Thank you very much i too am looking forward to this project and colleagues theres a motion made that i want to specific that items four and five will be forwarded for a Committee Report and seeing no objection that item passes unanimously thank you. Madam clerk call item 6. Item 6 an urgency ordinance approving the interim for the storefront mergers greater than 4 hundred and 99 in the special use district for an additional 10 months and 15 days. Thank you very much supervisor campos is the author of this item and his legislative aide hillary to make a short presentation. Thank you very much today, the mayor and supervisor campos are asking you to extend the interim controls the board passed that will prohibit of mergers that will result in a ground floor greater than 4 hundred and 989 square feet in the quatro special use district were seeking an extension of 10 months and 15 days on saturday our windfall tax the Economic Workforce Development and the Planning Department host a Community Meeting on 24th street to begin to discuss the accept we expect to collect Community Feedback over 3 offices wall street with the Mayors Office and the City Attorney are in the process of drafting the sud we hope to have the proposal to introduce by the end of the year. And moiments the original needs for the interim controls and mergers remain many long term neighborhoods serving businesses in the cult district have been closed because of skoeth republicans and smaller place you are more assessable to Small Businesses we hope youll put in place rules the state law requires the interim controls be for 10 months and 15 days, however, the sud is adapted earlier then those recusal will supersede the interim controls if you have any questions im here as well as Diego Sanchez and i think were i object to answer any questions. Fair market value that is a great legislation and my colleagues dont have any questions ill go ahead and open up for Public Comment any is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak Public Comment is open at this time. Okay seeing none, Public Comment is closed colleagues i dont know if you have any last minute remarks okay there is a motion made by my supervisor wiener to move with a with a positive recommendation. I didnt make that motion. Excuse me. Im sorry. Is there a motion . Anyone . Is there a motion . All right. Thank you very much lets take this with a roll call vote. On the motion to recommend item 6. Supervisor kim supervisor wiener no supervisor cohen thank you. This motion that item passes. Thats 2 is with one no with supervisor wiener is december sent. Thank you very much this item passes okay ladies and gentlemen, why dont we take up items 7 and 8. Item 7 to present finding from the annual balance report and item 89 to receive and approve the first bio annual report. Supervisor kim is the authors supervisor kim anything you want to say new. Thank you. I do want to thank chronicling and the committee for hearing this item today, i first of all, want to acknowledge the hard work the Planning Department i see our director john ram and many Staff Members that worked to collect that data since we passed the legislation in april of this year asking for data to have a better understanding of where the city is at in terms of hitting our goals of increasing the production of Affordable Housing but also where we were at in terms of loss of rental units housing in november of 2014 the voters approved a measure of prop k that said the city should set a goal of hitting 33 percent of Affordable Housing and 50 percent including madam clerk, any announcements . Housing this is not a mandate but a goal we would like to achieve in making sure that many of the san franciscans get to continue to live here and that we can have a difference workforce that can live in San Francisco as well i want to recognize thank you. Next speaker, please. Eagle on from the Controllers Office presenting on citywide income projects i am happy to report in the data to help to understand the impacts to our citys Housing Stock with the affordable and marketrate that helps policymakers to make more informed policy decisions but shows where the impacts are you think what is most striking about the report we read it in july was that we coming into close to our Affordable Housing production at 28 percent over the last event 10 years but were hurt in the loss of rental units housing and to make sure were acquiring existing Housing Stock is just as important as building and providing new Affordable Housing it is expected that certain districts will harbor more the development in San Francisco than otherwise by virtue of the availability of lands or the approximate of transit but regardless of how Much Development in each district percentage wise all district should offer a positive housing balance the production of affordable units surpasses Affordable Housing lost to evictions or to unit being taken off the market unfortunately, the majority of our district here in the city have a negative balance ranging from negative one to negative hundred and 89 percent so we have a citywide 10 year cumulative balance of 15 percent including large projects 20 percent and the balance includes permitted units on top of those that were built i am, of course, very excited to see were building a lot of housing 62 percent being built in this district and complooib with with supervisor cohen districts it is far in the majority im glad to see where we are building the housing a lot of Affordable Housing and, in fact, district 6 is 44 percent of the new Affordable Housing i think that it demonstrates it we have development that the city has work hard to insure that Affordable Housing is a part of any development that is being built and specialist the presence the ellis act that allowed for no fault evictions the report does reveal dramatically where those evictions occur in district 3 were less than 10 percent that has less than 10 percent of the construction that more than double no fault vibrations and district 8 more than triple when we look at where this is occurring the data is quite helpful in helping us understand where we want to target preservation collision so open up to Community Members if none open up to director ram. Director ram. Thank you, john ram with the Planning Department were happy to be here to report on the first essentially the first housing balance im joined write teresa the author of the report shell go into the details and other colleagues and emry rogers from the Planning Department. So then i think you, we thank ted egan for juan you quickly to go over what the housing balance report is and assistant in april as you may know the board passed ordinance 531 an ordinance to the planning code that directs the department to reports on the balances of new marketrate and other heirs over a 10 year period the affordable units to the net unites over that period it requires this report bio annually and the report to be done right away the one done two months ago i believe now were on a regular schedule to the report koimdz comes out in the spring weve discussed the fact that the board will take action after the spring report is out so what is the housing balance target the goal to insure that the data is meeting the take the and informs the approval processes for new Housing Development 3 targets we looked in this report won the Housing Element it, of course, is mandated by the state to be upgraded period a goal of 28 thousand new funds i units within 2015 and the 2022 the rehousing allocation that goals percipients it 57 should be available to low and moderate hours the department sentiments a report to the department of housing. Community development and prepare a report to the Planning Commission based on that goal and the second target is prop k, of course, which was passed by voters last year that set a goal that 33 percent of new units be affordable that is the goal it the housing balance aims for and the third the mayors gallows of thirty thousand set by 2020 with the housing visible to low income and middleincome ill say as supervisor kim pointed out where the parts of city that are seeing the most development are where we are achieving the affordability goals because the Housing Development helped to pay for that and the department is eagle seeing and need to work with mohcd and other agencies on stabilizing the housing and this is an important point in the report kind of guiding us in the work with the Mission Street and hopefully other neighborhoods as we moving forward the stabilization, if you will, the neighborhoods roksz the Senior Development and the need to stabilize the rentcontrolled unit how are you stockbroker with that, im going to turn it over to teresa to go over the details of the report thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is teresa with senior planner with the citywide policy Planning Section ill be presenting on the housing balance details as director wham ram mentioned the housing balance the portion of housing unit to the totals of new hournts over a 10 year housing Balance Period what is the 10 year historical production trend. If we are to look at just new Housing Production and affordable units made up of 29. 7 or thirty percent of the net new Housing Units built in the last 10 period were talking about the Third Quarter of 2005 is to the 2015 this presentation is actually on the second report youve received the housing balance clacks looks at beyond the calculation and the housing balance calculations looked at the choigsz and rehabilitations made and rad and replacement completed rad stands for rental demonstration he essentially the replacement of older Public Housing projects and entitled and permitted affordable units must units reformed from protected status sierra club the rental units are removed under ellis act or the demolition catalytic i have condominium conversion and other no fault evictions the Housing Stock is seen as as proposition for that netted new units built plus net new entitled and permitted units the figures are all for the 10 year reporting period. This presentation covers the second housing balance reports simply for the period we looked at net new oornz stock totaled 4 nine hundred the net affordability shocker is 15 percent the cumulative city balance over the 10 year period the ordinance also requires that the housing balance be calculate for the browns district and by Planning Department direction the slide shows the balances for the board of supervisors district and this range from negative hundred and 89 percent if district 4 to 40 percent in district 5 the negative balances are due to larger number of units removed from protected status relative to the net new affordable units in the howe new Housing Units builds overall district 5, 6 and 10 positive baltz 40, 25 and 20 percent respect the rest of the negative balances. Im sorry can you repeat that one more time you said district 5, 6 and 10. Are positive housing balances. Especially meaning were building and the Affordable Housing units built relative to the Affordable Housing units that are taken from the market theyre more net units built relative to those. If i can say it more simply were building more Affordable Housing than losing so districts 5, of and 10 are building more Affordable Housing than were losing. Thank you. This next slide shows the director of transportation by the Pricilla Chan district those districts by way of are consistent with the boundaries in the housing inadvertent reports again those arrange of balance from negative hundred 25 percent to the rightofway approximately the geography of the board of supervisors district 4 and about 39 in the western edition and in downtown. The ordinance also requires a projected housing balance sierra club net new affordable units as a proposition of the total new units in projects that have received entitlements and yet to receive the building permit. This slide shows the balance is 13 percent the this prolonged housing balance is provided the board of supervisors district and Planning Department levels. So what is not included the housing balance ordinance also specifics that 3 Major Projects have already been entitled but do not yet have Building Permits not included in the projected housing balance altogether those projects will provide about 23 thousand seven hundred net units of which 21 percent will be affordable not included in the projected housing balance are projects currently under review and rad projects that are slated to starts rehabilitation in a couple of months about 12 thousand nine hundred units goodwill review 40 percent are affordable units 70 marketrate projects are a total of 10 thousand 5 hundred units subject to the inclusionary housing requirement at this time we do know how much theyll generate it depends on the option those projects take there are about 15 rad projects in phase one one thousand 4 hundred and 25 we have rrgs rehabilitation to start in december. What are the next steps the department sticks to the bilingual annual reporting schedule and stipulate the housing balance reports couples in the first of mark and september it was will conducted before the board of supervisors and before the first of april of Mayors Office of housing and Community Development the Mayors Office of housing the rent board and the department of building inspection and the city visit will present strategies for maintaining a Health Balance with the citys affordable meeting in april should a cumulative balance fall blow with a determined amount of funding for the city to be in the 33 percent the Planning Departments will create and maintain a website specifically for the housing balance report as required by the ordinance im available to answer any questions. Thank you very much for our thoughtful preservation id like to bring up mr. Had a wood can you do us a favor and gives the highlight why this report is important and what are the key points its trying go to communicate. Happy to Sophie Hayward from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development thank you for having us here today, the housing balance report is one way to track the citys voter approved dowel to achieve a housing balance as memoriam listed through the prop k we at mohcd are responsible for the code requirement after the issuance of the second report if april im here to do today so out a in Broad Strokes of the work of mohcd for chief of police the goals of prop k were tracking 3 inputs to the formula formula that creates the housing balance and for us as the new Affordable Housing production managing our priming specifically, and, secondly, findings new funds and resources and securing the resources to secure Affordable Housing and third managing or watching and doing our part for the loss of rentcontrolled units so to that end in terms of new production mohcd current Affordable Housing Pipeline Projects the 3 thousand 5 hundred rehabbed affordable units by 2018 those will if i calculate takes the balance have to 26 percent ill work with them online for the eligible accountability and in addition 3 thousand plus 2, 3, 4 predevelopment and thats part of our regular pipeline youve heard that from time to time by way of new funds id like to just take a few moments to highlight two new sources we know of and two potential source of other than first around the sb 107 for 3 thousand units that previously have fallen into the category with no identified funding in addition, we have the new the states cap trade regulations recently eliminated the 15 million jurisdictional cap in the first rounds the allocations it means in the future multi projects within San Francisco, california apply each for up to 15 million in individual award from the cap trade funding we hope that is expedites are production of Affordable Housing and by a way of the two potential source of revenue the ab two, that was passed at the state level were hoping that is favorable for San Francisco were not sure yet but provide you more information as we pull it together a number of criteria that are required in order to secure that funding but were analyzing right now the city at various levels to see how that applies and, of course, the Affordable Housing bonds that railroad on the ballot this november and if this passes 4 hundred more rehabbed or new affordable units. Loss of units is the third category i want to address this is challenging as a city and at mohcd in particular we dont have control over the loss of rental units p we have as a a city and continue to pursue efforts to slow evicts and the loss of those protected units at mohcd well continue to fund the defense programs fully and then well hopefully as you are the tenants rights legislation will slough the loss of protected units were making process in establishing the framework for on Accelerator Fund to focus on the collision of larger rentcontrolled units buildings to remove the tenants and that if i understand will serve as a compliment to the Small Sites Program that seeks to acquire smaller rentcontrolled units. So as i said well provide our formal response in the spring i hope this gives us an approach how we looking at the balances and im available to answer any questions. Thank you. We appreciate the may i have. Got a couple of questions for you. Please. Chair cowen. I talked about ab 2 at the board and incredibly interested what the stating means in Treasure Island we included in the da a were recent to use an increment to go up to other thirty percent that was the original goal of Affordable Housing on the island but i also understand that ab two allows us based on a set of criteria to use tax cements on sensitive blocks maybe less of a question more of an ask or a request that mohcd look at the all the eligible tracks in the works so we can have a map of where we might be able to use this tool in San Francisco and, of course, ive requested that the Treasure Island department are authority to look at how to mohcd tracks our affordability on Treasure Island and great to work with the Mayors Office of housing as well. Absolutely from when i understand this is our preliminary stages how we could potentially use our assess through ab 2 we need to start with the mapping the tracks that includes the tracks that are income eligible and work with on the Vice President s to layer in the data related to the other data. Thank you. Im glad that moh city as working on it is it a high bar given the fact they use the average medium income not San Francisco i know your im is much higher than statewide hopefully, there will be sustained areas we can use is for, and, secondly, im glad to hear about the housing accelerator a huge supporter of the fund and excited to purchase 534 and 6 and in the Mayors Office of housing it is sometimes hard with you realize our only by 5 or 7 units at that time, and have large rentcontrolled units buildings thought San Francisco is it would be amazing to acquire and add those to the portfolio and make a dent in adding to the acquisition im looking forward to hearing about that and the strategies how we start our identify potential sites. Thank you. Supervisor wiener do you have any questions. I have not a question but a comment that is very helpful and you know showing there are way too many vibrations in San Francisco i want to note in terms of the housing balance when you look at the balance by district the supervisorial districts clearly the evictions radio a major factor in the significance of that balance we need intoxicate look at how many affordable units are being built for example in district 8 percent the district i represent that are too much evictions going on and also way too few affordable units being built and what we can see from this report is i think we all have known this that there are certain parts of city it are getting a lot of affordable units built and neighborhood where very little affordable units is being built ive had a lot of discusses with the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development about the fact im via very, very happy a lot of affordable units is going in district 6 thats he terrific and happy were seeing a lot of Affordable Housing in district 10 but also need in district 8 and 9 example and 5 and 4 and all over the city right now we dont center geography graphic equality there are plenty of rebates why were in this place the good thing that political shift everywhere weve surrendering seen around housing many parts of city want Affordable Housing so we need to reduce the number of evictions absolutely but as popular we have to significantly improve the process faster and proceed is it to more parts of city of we reduce the number of vibrations to zero well be in a housing crisis because of the lack of Affordable Housing. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay. At this time, well take Public Comment on items 7 and 8. My name is francisco decost i think we really need to look at this issue very, very seriously with the imperial data so we really do not know when it comes to the figures thirty thousand units in this city. Whether we have about three hundred and 84 thousand housing unit in total about our population if it is color to 8 hundred and 20 thousand and when the mayor talks about the thirty thousand units and some people take for granted theyll be units are going to be built in the southeast sector and you include the Public Housing they should be demolished if noted rehabbed anyone that is sensible tells me the infrastructure doesnt work the other thing we throw out the numbers be very, very careful not building in any area that is contaminated and going to liquefaction and flooding and not addressing quality of life ordinances you may think in district of a lot of Affordable Housing but do you all ask the people if their if their suffering from asthma religious percent diseases i would like to remind that this is a lonely lands this is never mentioned and mellone has the inadvertently some people think this is fine to build luxurious units on Treasure Island but theyll suffer from the elements inaudible . Next speaker thank you. Next speaker, please. Please come to the mike. Good afternoon. Im a president of the Richmond Community association and in regards to Affordable Housing it is a major, major issue as you may know in the city and there are many part inside the city that has not contribute and theres a good reason for that the worse part of city is built up and out we dont have the density as most other parrots of city now the new Affordable Housing density plan for example, has an effort to increase Affordable Housing and many areas of the city and in the richmond for example, you as you can see this house picture there are second story what is allowed in the Affordable Housing bonus plan as you may know to increase it stories above what it is designed for. Affordable housing is really important to many of us in the Richmond District we live in the Richmond District we like the reconcile of the district and going online you know about the next door well, i posted this issue about the Affordable Housing Affordable Housing bonus plan and it is interesting to see what kind of comments came up the people who are homeownerships are really concerned oh, my god what is going to happen well loss our backyard or open space and privacy and selfishly Property Values on the other hand, there are other young people who are not established dont have families they could careless they want housing now and some of them with making comments dont to have a manhattan well unfortunately feel we dont have a manhattan transportation and it didnt meet the standards of department that is necessary so well, at the end the affordable bonus plan should be considered other than a case by case situation because otherwise theres will be a tremendous negative impact for some of the districts especially the Richmond District and the Richmond District 75 percent of blocks will have or could have an impact with this plan so i is onesizefitsall thank you. Thank you. Next speaker once the Transit System in chinatown in chinatown most of the well fixture for about most of the departments of housing low, low low income people Affordable Housing and those conditions so terminal just terrible conditions that requires maybe our were not a working scheme but remodeling and more construction involved in the housing structures over chinatown. Thank you are any is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak Public Comment is closed. Is closed for item 7 and 8 thank you. This matter is in the hands of the committee id like to make a motion that item 7 be filed and that item 8 move forward to the full board. A i so moved on both of those. Thank you. Can this motion pass with or without well take that without objection. Okay well take that without objection. Madam clerk any other items before i. No, that concludes our presentation today. Madam clerk, any other business before this committee . This meeting is now adjourned thank you. Adjourned thank you. Working for the city and county of San Francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city thats on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. Our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. After all, were at the meeting of land and sea. Our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world class style. Its the birthplace of blue jeans, and where the rock holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. The citys Information Technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring Patient Safety at San Francisco general. Our it professionals make government accessible through awardwinning mobile apps, and support vital Infrastructure Projects like the hetch hetchy Regional Water system. Our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. But most importantly, working for the city and county of San Francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the citys future. Thank you for considering a career with the city and county of San Francisco. G. R good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission and recreation and Park Commission joint hearing and i would like to remind members of public the commission doesnt tolerate any disruptions and please science silence any mobile devices and when speaking before the commission, to state your name, for the record. Planning Commission President fong . Here. Planning commission Vice President wu. Here. Commissioner antonini. Present. Commissioner hillis. Here. Commission richards here. Commissioner moore will be absent. Commissioner buell. Here. Commissioner low. Here. Commissioner bonilla. Here commissioner harrison. Here. Commissioner mcdonnell . Here. Commissioner levitan has an excuse the absence. Please note the joint commissions will hold one public hearing for the public to provide testimony on all items listed below. Following the public hearing, the recreation and Park Commission will act joinly with the Planning Commission in adopting findings under the California Environmental quality act and recreation and Park Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the possible adverse impact of shadow on Gene Friend Recreation Center. Following action on those items the recreation and Park Commission will adjourn and Planning Commission will remain in session and separately consider all other items. Items 1a, b, c, and d for case numbers 20110586k and x at 363 6th street. Item is a is the discussion and possible joint action by the Planning Commission and recreation and Park Commission to raise the cumulative shadow limit for Gene Friend Recreation Center pursuant to the planning code section 295 [eurpt ]ation memo adopted in 1989. This will be a Planning Commission recreation and Park Commission joint action. Item 1b is the discussion and possible action by the recreation and Park Commission to adopt a resolution to recommend to the Planning Commission that the new shadow cast on Gene Friend Recreation Center by the proposed project at 363 6th street will not be adverse to the use of the park as require by Planning Commission section 2956789 this is a recreation and Park Commission action only. Following items 1a and b, the recreation and Park Commission will adjourn and the Planning Commission will remain in session. To separate consider the following items 1c and d. For case numbers 2011586k and x, adoption of findings and large project authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. Rich sucre, Department Staff, joineded by our shadow specialist from the Planning Department and Stacey Bradley from the recreation and park department. Under the large project authorization, the project is seeking modifications to the planning code requirement for rear yard, permitted obstructions over the street, dwelling unit expose [kwraurpb ] offstreet park. Per plasing code section 295 the Planning Commission and rm cc must grand authorization to you new Construction Projects that will cast shadow or shade upon any property under the jurisdiction of the recreation and Park Commission. The project will cast new shadow upon Gene Friend Recreation Center since Gene Friend Recreation Center poses shadow budget, to one, increase the shadow budget of the gene Friend Center. And two, adopt a motion that additional shadow caused by project will not be adverse to the use of Gene Friend Recreation Center. Additional information on the shadow and its impact on gene friend will be provided by state. In itlleds demolition of the existing twostory warehouse currently used as a church and the residential building with 104 dwelling units and approximately 700 square feet of ground floor space. 45 offstreet Parking Spaces below gray. 102 class 2 bicycle parking states and seven class it [ 2 ] bicycle spaces. Including dwelling unit mix con sifting of 56 twobed radio room units, et cetera. The project includes common own space via ground floor, roof deck and private open space for three dwelling units via private terraces on ground floor. The entrances to the offstreet parking through a 10 wide opening through clara state. Todate the department has received numerous correspondences about the proposed project both in support and in opposition. Since publication of the commission packets on october 8th, i provided the additional correspondence received by the Planning Department to both commissions. The project has elected onsigh Affordable Housing alternative and since the project contains 104 dwelling units the project will provide 12 Affordable Housing units onsite will will be available for rent. Since its involving a rental agreement, the project sponsor has entered into an agreement with the city. In compliance are ordinance 7015, the project sponsor reviewed the entertainment project can the Entertainment Commission and the Entertainment Commission requests that the Planning Commission adopt an additional condition of approval involving measures for noise attenuatation. The Department Notes that the ground floor retail use at [koerpbt ] of 6th and harrison street has han 18 floortoceiling height and meets the requirement of planning code section 145. Just it to note only nonresidential use on the ground floor are required to have a minimum of 14 of ground floor height. Further the floor to sealing height of the average residential plate is 84 and compliant with both building and planning code. The Department Staff recommends approval with conditions. Specifically the project complis with the applicable requirements of the planning code, the project is consistent with the objectivity and policies of the gp. The project is located in Zoning District where residential and ground floor uses are principally permitted. The project produced 104 dwelling unit and Ground Floor Corner retail. The project is consistent with and respects the existing neighborhood character, and provides an appropriate matching and scale for a large scale block and will fully utilize the plan control and pay the appropriate development fees. The project sponsor and the recreation and Parks Commission staff are present and have prepared short presentations. This concludes my presentation. I am available for my questions. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Stacey bladey Deputy Director at planning unit at rec and parks to discuss the shadow impacts on Gene Friend Recreation Center. As you know the Site Planning code section 295 from the voterapproved prop k, sunlight ordinance that voters approved in 1994. 19871989 two memos adjacently approved by the commission that define hows the shadow can qualitative and quantitative criteria and includes the definition of solar year, and day, the day from one hour after sunrise before unhour before sunset [ inaudible ] this map shows you the project at 6th street in relation to our two parks. [ inaudible ] do me a favor, wiggle the base. Sorry, is that better . Yes. Much better. Okay. You can see the map here with 363 6th street gene friend to the north. The project was analyzed to see if any new shadow hit either both and no new shadow the rest of my presentation delves into gene friend rec. The park details now just over an acre and existing shadow load is 22. 94 of the total theoretical annual available sunlight on the park, on the open space of the park. It is 60. 67 there is a shadow load of 60. 67 when you include the Recreation Center building, which is always in shadow. This shows where the new general location of where the new shadow will be. The new shadow is. Roughly. 03 of the task. And would increase from 22. 94 to 22. 97 on the open space to 60. 67 when the Rec Center Building is included. Now rpd trust for public lands to do a Feasibility Study on concept plan for the site. Were looking at redesigning the entire site. It is likely that the building will be roughly where it is now along the 6th street corridor and probably extend to folsom street. Well also have similar features in the open space as it does now. The Recreation Center may or may not have Outdoor Recreation space on the rooftop. This provides a summary of the shadow analysis. The new shadow would occur in the morning within 30 minutes of the solar day, so that is about one hour after sunrise. And will occur no later than 8 40 in the morning. This is important as the park is currently opens at 9 00 a. M. And closes at 6 00, currently closed sunday and monday, although its available for afternoon programming and rentals on sunday and monday. The shadow, the new shadow will be on the park 20 days between september and march. The new shadowranges from one minute to 23 minute and average is 12 minutes. The largest footprint october 25th from 7 30 to 7 38 and will shadow just over 6,000 square feet of the park. Its approximately 13 of the total park area. The maximum shadow cast is 822 square foot hours on 10 25 and total square foot of the new shadow is just over 36,000 or. 03 . Location of the shadow is in the southern part of the property along folsom street right now it has a lawn area south of the playground. This shows you cumulative projects that we know in the pipeline. There is 363 6th street is highlighted in orange. Just south of that is 988 harrison interest and has been determined that project will cast no new project on the park. That would have a minimal shadow of. 07 . These two shadows interact. So the information of these projects is it lays over each other. So they may cast similar shadow. 999 folsom street is north of 345 6th street and estimated to have 1 shadow load on the park. Then 980 folsom street is lightly to the west along folsom and pending shadow studly, but will likely have a shadow impact as well. This image shows the worstCase Scenario of 363 6th and also shows 345 6th street. Im here with planning staff and were available for any questions that you may have . Also the project sponsor is here as well with a presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor. Good afternoon, commissioners, Alexis Pelosi. The project sponsor and the president who is here today, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to present the project at 363 6th street. We have been work on this project with Planning Department staff and community and reflects the invaluable insight by both group and project that will bring much needed housing. Real tek was formed with the focus to build housing that is affordable by design and housing that responds to and reflects the community and the neighborhoods where it is located. Real tek has engaged if its neighbors and local businesses, nonprofit and citywide entitis to design and integrate projects that weave into the local San Francisco. Cody, a real tek team member will be provide a summary of the project at 363, 6th street and i will provide an overview of the shadow and cody will conclude the sponsors presentation with a brief summary of real teks community out reach and Community Benefits. Before turning it over to cody, we want to thank the Planning Department staff, and in particular rick sucre and david for their professionalism and guidance and we want to thank Community Members for working with real teks on the 363 6th Street Project and their comments and staffs work has resulted in a better project and one that were honored to receive a favorable recommendation for approval from staff. Here is cody, who will walk you through the details of the project. Good afternoon, commission members. Executive Vice President of real tek. I would like to express my gratitude for the Planning Departments positive recommendation of the project and the hard work that they have put into this project to make it a better place to live, work, and play. As described by mr. Sucre, 363 6th street is located at corner of 6th and clara street. Thank you. Our proposed project is an 85 tall mixeduse residential build. We envision our project transforepersoning this important, but underutilized gateway to downtown. Given our proposed project provides a total of 104 luxury residential units, comprises of 28 studios, 21 bedroom and 56 twobedroom units including 12 onsite inclusionary affordable units, 54 of our units are twobedrooms far exceeding the 40 requirement. We have worked extensive with the Planning Department staff to activate the street, after meet communitying multiple oneonone meetings with Community Leaders we have Incorporated Many of the changes into the project, and its helped us improve the pedestrian experience. The ground floor fronting 6th street include a lobby, Community Room, 700 square foot commercial space, with frontages on both 6th street and clary clara street. It will be available for Community Members for meetings and events and were working to donate to local nonprofits. Working with David Winslow we designed the clara street frontage to integrate the residential feel of clara street. The building is setback 10 above the 4th floor with three residential units fronting clara street on the groundlevel. These units have raised entries and are setback 14 from curb creating separation from the street and privacy for the residents. Our project provides approximately 8,000 square feet of combined open space, comprised ongrade rear yard and rooftop deck. Now i would like to ask Alexis Pelosi to return and discuss the buildings shadow and the relationship to the two parks located near the project. Hi. Im going to talk about shadow and i know stacey did a great job with overview of it. Victoria Manalo Draves park and gene friend park. Amd noble is here prepared a shadow study and based on the analysis it was determined it would not have a shadow impact on vped victoria Manalo Draves, but would catch a small shadow on Gene Friend Recreation Center. As indicated by stacey, gene friend is open tuesday through friday and 9 00 a. M. To 5 00 p. M. On saturdays and closed on mondays and sundays. At its maximum, the projects new shadow covers 13 of the park and averages for approximately 12 minute and located in passive recreation areas. In total, the net new shadow cast by the project is 0. 02 increase in the existing shadow load on the park. To help visualize, the project sponsor has prepared a video of the worst shadow day, the day with the greatest new shadow and largest new shadow by area. The video is not required, nor proposition k or ceqa, but prepared and is being provided to help visualize the duration and location of the net new shadow. Gene friend is outlined in yellow. And 363 6th street is in blue. As you can see the shadow has already left the park. The shadow occurs first thing in the morning, as you can see. And quickly moves off of the park. So off the park by 7 55 a. M. This is a still of the worst shadow day, which stacey also showed. On this day, again, this shadow covers 13 at maximum. And is gone by 7 55 a. M. , which is over an hour before the park opens. To get a essence sense sense of where the shadow is cast, you can see the shadow cast on passive recreation areas such as walkways on the southeast corner of the park. The shadow cast before gene Friend Center is open, the latest shadow that occurs on the park at 8 41, 19 minutes before the park opens and covers at maximum 13 of the park. For all of these reasons and because of the limited size and duration of the shadow in relation to Gene Friend Recreation Center and existing shadow load, we agree with staffs determination its nod adverse and does not interfere with use of park and to increase acl for gene Friend Center by 0. 08 . Here is cody to talk more about the projects Community Benefit and community outreach. Real tek is contributing a combined 1. 8 Million Dollars to the community in the form of impact fees, including 185,000 in contributions to local parks and youth programs. Project provides 12 new below marketrate affordable units, 54 of the units will be twobedroom and were committed to hiring local, Skilled Trades people for the buildings construction. Since the inception of the project real tek has met with over 25 Community Organizations and providing letters of support from local neighbors. We developed a strong supportive relationship with seven major Community Organizations including walk sf, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, united players, city crossroadssom art, National Federation of filipinoamericans meeting with Community Leaders oneonone has helped us understand the communitys needs and shaped our projects design. Recognizing the importance of local parks we have formed a partnership with the San Francisco Parks Alliance to found Youth Sports Program at Gene Friend Rec Center and sponsor a monthly movie night at victoria Manalo Draves park. We supported with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalitions bike and roll to school day, walking sf pilot program, part of their safe routes to school andsom arts and sponsor a south of market youth collaborative, which provides summer programs for 175 atrisk children. We have engaged the Filipino Community with Health Symposium and proud sponsor of the victoria Manalo Draves vmd plaque that had an unveiling ceremony and support the asianpacific islanders fundraising efforts. Many closing i would like to thank the staff of the the Planning Department for positive recommendation on our project. Thank you. We will open up to Public Comment. Read something cards here. Rudy, carlos. Rudy asuncion. Natasha r. [ reading speakers names ] im with the National Federation of filipinoamericans and im here to support realteks project. Realtek has proven themselves to be supportive of the community. And they have proven to be a valid Community Partner for the south of market area. But one of the things that i would really like about realtek is that they supported our project to us that is very important because filipinos have the highest rick in risk in the united states. I support their project strongly and ask that you also do the same. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners, my name is rudy also. I personally like shadows its been hot lately. I am here to support realtek, they have willing to support our organizations and 175 kids for the next five years to help fund all of our fieldtrips for all kids, 175 kids. We we have been having genuine relationships and conversations with them. There were three requests that we made. We requested three and they did two out of the three, which is good. Were here to support the project. I also know there are a lot of people here who have construction work that they need done and hopefully they can help the brothers out, too. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Any name is natasha im here to actually support this project under realtek because i believe it will not only be beneficial for the community and they are going to provide i believe 300 jobs that are going to be they are going to be using local laborers and unions that will help the local economy and also help the middleclass and also lowincome families. Because we do really need it here in San Francisco. Also we are happy that they are supporting the Filipino Community. They have mentioned that they did support our Health Symposium that was done at the filipino consulate and victoria Manalo Draves that is close to me because its also empowering filipinoamericans and also empowering women. So i do truly support this project. Thank you and have a good day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Come on up and i will call a couple more names. [speaker not [ reading speakers names ] good afternoon commissioners, former member and president of the San Francisco Community College and port and Public Utilities commission. Im here not to repeat what has already been said except to also express my support that those who support the Filipino Community in the south of market, which badly needs support, like realtek will get the support of the Filipino Community. So we endorse this project wholeheartedly. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. Thank you for your time in allowing me to speak in favor of this project located at 363 6th street. Im carlos duran and field representative for the Carpenters Union of which approximately 3,000 belong to local 22 here in San Francisco. Some of those members are here behind me today. Carpenters local 22 fully supports this project for the following reasons, the vermont realtek has made a commitment to hire Union General contractor to build this project. This will create good jobs that provide living wages, health, and pension benefits. This project also creates real opportunity for local San Francisco residents to enter the carpenters apprentice project. Furthermore this project completes 104 family units that addresses the crisis in Affordable Housing and middleclass housing in our great city. In conclusion i urge the commission to raise the cumulative shadow limit to push this project forward. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Heather Phillips executive director at city crossroads located on 6th street across the street from howard on this project and also a Community Resident and friends of victoria Manalo Draves and Gene Friend Rec Center group. Realtek has been engaged in the conversation for almost a year with the community asking in anticipation of the shadow how they could be of benefit to the community looking at the longterm . As rudy said they have supported youth collaborative, which city crossroads is a part by supporting fieldtrips for 175 kids for the next five summers. They have contributed funding to the friends of the park group through the Parks Alliance in order to Fund Youth Sports at gene friend. And so i really feel like they have reached out and tried to create partnership in the community and not just trying to bump up the shadow limit, but to really look at mitigating those impacts with real things that address the needs that shadows on our park create. So i would urge you just to look at the way that this project affects and the way that this developer has looked to benefit the community. Thank you. Hello, my friends. My name is michelle alevis, resident of south of market and Service Provider and parent. Im speaking today in support of the 363 project. Development is a huge issue in our community, but i wish more folks would come to the table like these folks have and try to engage the community and find out what they can do to be a benefit . One of the things that i really appreciate is the interest and willingness to commit longterm to a fiveyear investment instead of just an investment upfront. When the project is being created, and that will provide services for young people for a few years to come and not just once the building is built. So we are confident that they will continue to be a member of the community, and find ways to contribute past the construction of this project. And so i just wanted to share my strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners, thank you for being here. My name is kelly gross and im a member of both walk Stanley Morgan and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. And they supported to letters of support i wanted to read into the public record. First from the Bicycle Coalition. Thank you for your engagement in the community, the zero vision catalog and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition as part of your outreach around the 363 6th street product. The project is located on a high injury corridor and on routes [tphraoebgt ]ed by people walking and biking. We appreciate your focus on ensuring that current and future residents have safe and attractive places to walk and bike. Many of the current members of the community have been asking for safety in connective improvements for years. In particular we were excited to join you and your Outreach Team for Community Safety walk around the project. Being able to walk the streets surrounding the proposed site location with members of vision zero coalition, help our Coalition Members discuss the importance of safety treatments with realtek team and share the vision that they have for a safer 6th street. This project is on a high injury corridor and located in communities of concern. So its particularly critical you that addresses Community Safety concerns. We also very much appreciate your support and engagement with the Carmichael School for bike and roll to school. This week was our most popular ever. Finally, we are pleased to see that both projects provide significant bicycle parking space for residences and makes it possible for residents to have safe and healthy transportation options. We appreciate the chance to work with you and look forward to continuing Work Together to improve safety and provide safe, convenient and affordable transportation areas. Sincerely policy director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. The next letter from walk San Francisco. Thank you for realteks sponsorful of the Betsy Carmichael program. Realteks donation will support goals of safe routes to school to encourage children to walk to and from school and create safer environments in the neighborhood. Walk San Francisco is part of a growing movement to promote safe, sustainable and healthy transportation. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is fred. I own the Insurance Company and ensure about 250 Small Businesss in the geographical area were looking at developing. I want to applaud realtek for reaching out to the community. What im saying here, i want you to look at every one of these faces. Brothers and sisters, and i know what its like, because i came here undocumented to this country. What jobs mean . The economy hasnt been that great. As thriving today, and these people finally have jobs. They just want to take care of their families. They just want basic rights. We know this organization has reached out to the community, doinging the right things. But you know what is more important to me . And some of you people on this board that have been in unions can understand, its just taking care of the basic needs of the family. Im glad that you guys are here and standing up, because we need jobs for you. I think the economy is going to drive thrive and families will five. Businesses that are not been doing well are starting to thrive and now their businesses are becoming sustainable. You understand what it needs to make this happen . I hope you will approve this project i think they are doing the right thing. I if any know they are doing the right thing. I dont know the people very well, but what i care about is those people right there. Have a nice day. Thank you. Thank you good afternoon commissioners and thanks for your time for allowing me to speak. Dante johnson, born and raised in the Mission District and a few years in the western addition. I went to galileo and city college of San Francisco and decided i wanted to sell real estate, but that turn a turn for the worse. So i had no idea what i was going to do in an expensive city, you know, how the rent is here . So i joined the local 22 and became a carpenter and found it to be satisfying, creating something from nothing. There is a blank space there and you drop by and there is a building there. So i grew up innercity kid with nothing, as a metaphor and now i have a career. So i also created something from nothing within myself. So i would just like to push this project to give more people like me to have the opportunity to create something from nothing. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Recreation and Park Commission, my name is joel copple and i work for the San Francisco electrical and Electricians Union and also speaking for other unions. Im a San Francisco resident from here, grew up hire. Live right next to Golden Gate Park and appreciate what the rec and Parks Commission does. I have a letter addressed to planning president fong that i would like to submit it now while everyone is here so were all looking at the same piece of paper. Its great to see there is a large presence here of carpenters and its great there is a commitment from the developer to work with the carpenters. I reached out to be here speaking in favor of the project. I want to be discreet about this. I know its a very small town and im not here to burn any bridges or disrupt anything in the future. But as far as our local 32 contractors, sorry, we have 32, local contractors. And all of our 974 electricians that live in San Francisco were not we dont have a commitment from the developer on this project. So we look at this as developer versus community. Developer benefits versus Community Benefits. And should we make deals with part of the community or all of the community . We would like to have a commitment from the developer just like the carpenters. Last week we were here for 532 harrison and we have commitments from the developers and all of the other trades were here in support of the project. Again, not that the whole commission is going to revolve around us, but for my members and my contractors, were unfortunately opposing this project. Henry any other Public Comment addition no in addition to henry . Henry market business association. South of market has been [speaker not understood] there was a lot of work that was lost. Also Small Business was lost. Now were faced with what were going to more people coming in and more People Living in the area and more Small Businesses that will be successful and thrive. We heavily endorse and support this project and hope that you will do so likewise. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im alice rogers from 10 south park. Im here to address item is d, not dealing with the shadow issue, but the groundfloor project. Im not opposed to this project being built. I think it will be an asset to the community. Im thankful for the outreach that they have done, but groundfloor design of this project clearly is in violation and disregards your very own ground floor residential guidelines, which we were told have the force of law, even though they happen not to be clearly spelled out at this moment in the planning code. I would respectfully request that you continue the item and ask for a groundfloor redesign. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im reading a letter on behalf of jess young, who is from the soma arts executive director. She is sorry she couldnt make it today, but wanted to submit the record to be on the record for the commissioners. We want to thank realtek for engagement with community and with communityorganizations as som art and Bicycle Coalition. We have been consistently impressed with how engaged and interested realtek has been in becoming part of the social fabric of the neighborhood. Their willingness to participate in soma arts programming and learn about the significant cultural history. With constituents in need of Affordable Housing, were pleased it their 12 Affordable Housing and within walking distance ofsoma arts. We look forward to welcoming future residents to join soma arts in engaging the power of the arts for just. Inclusion. Any further Public Comment . Commissioner antonini. On our agenda is the consideration of the shadow and whether to raise cumulative limit . And as has been presented, the impact of this is very small. 027 of the available amount of shadow over the entire year and it only affects 20 out of 365 days, with the duration of 522 minutings. And in all cases apparently the shadow is done well before the opening of the park and most of the shadow falls on the area that is the entryway to the park. There has been some talk although not finalized yet about a redesign of the structures which might end up putting structures on the area where the shadow is falling. But i think given the benefits that the project brings, and the fact that the impact is negligible and unless the hours are changed, has no effect on anybody inhabiting the park. I would be in favor of raising the cumulative limit to an amount that would allow this small increment to be allowed in this project. Commissioner wu. Thank you. So my first question is to staff. Rec and parks staff outlined a number of projects that are going to be coming forward. I dont know, can you give us a framework how to think about the fact there will be three or four projects in a row, coming and asking for an increase in what was originally a zero percent allowance. The other projects in the pipeline, 345 th street and 904 folsom, the Environmental Review is still active and the department hasnt finish third commentary on the proposed design. While we provided initially framework for the massing relative to the cumulative study, so the commissioners are aware of the potential impact only the shadow, there is not there is not enough Information Available to basically provide Additional Information to the commission to consider. Thank you. If i could just followup on that. Rich, correct me if im wrong, the analysis that was shown by rec and parks staff was, i think its fair to say is kind of the worstCase Scenario. Correct. As the projects move forward we work with the sponsors so its further refined and wanted to give you a worstCase Scenario. In the case, i think they used massing proposed by the sponsor, which isnt necessarily the massing supported by the department or future commission. Thank you. To that point, if i could ask the developer or the architect, what would it take to design out the shadow . Alexis pelosi again. That is something that the project sponsor hasnt spent a lot of time looking at that point. Our understanding is given the sun access plane of the sun when it hits the building, hits the building pretty square on and adam noble is here and can talk about it as well. It captures a large mass of the building. So preliminary looks at it indicate that it would take off probably 23 stories of the building which would result in a decrease of how many units . A significant portion of those units. Because its not only cutting off the top of the building, but also the core. So it would impact probably two to three floors. Is it across the entire two floors or a corner of the building . Its not a corner of the building. Let me see if i can find an image. So the way that the building fronts along 6th street, the massing along 6th street over in that big corner. The way the building is designed with the said the bac with the rear yard, the core goes up to the roof and provides access to all floors. When you cut it off to take off the top floors you are also cutting off the core of the building and thereafter cannot have the units at that level. As a result, you know, if there were to be no shadow impact on the park, it would be a completely redesigned project and look completely different with a different layout and its not as simple as cutting out a corner of the build. Thank you. I say this every time, the 89 memo talks about the parks on cumulative list, also than 2 acres and i take that seriously. So its hard when you dont have any options in front of you that are about shadowed versus nonshadow park. Commissioner hillis. Thank you for the presentation. I think this is similar to the project we had when we met a while ago with 5m and this shadow is fairly minimal in areas of the park that are somewhat ancillary in during hours that the park is not open, which i think is significant and something that we should take into consideration. As always a balance between allowing for new development and in balancing that with impacts. But i think the impacts are significantly low enough here, that the project outweighs a couple of questions . First for planning staff. When we did transbay, we kind of looked at the shadow impact of that project on parks. Did we do that when we did the east soma, eastern neighborhoods plan . And kind of increased the shadow limits in envelopes . Was that something kind of new to transbay . I think the short answer, commissioner is that it was relatively new to transbay. Because we knew what when you did transbay, you were looking at the specific projects and heights that we knew about. The difference is that in eastern neighborhoods we didnt know, because it was first of all a much bigger area and second of all, much more speculate i ive and so its less impact, if you will tran transbay. That is a useful exercise. We didnt increase the shadow envelopes for that. So were kind of talking out of both sides. I appreciate that we did it for transbay and not for this. Second for rec and park, why is gene friend limited hours and victoria Manalo Draves is open dusk to dawn . Just interested in that. I think actually the hours im not 100 of this, as i sit here and respond, i think the hours are quite similar. They are both gated. They were both designed with gated properties. So they are closed. They essentially both function from dusk to dawn. Gene friend is more an active Recreation Site and like to have people in the building to program the space. Which is a little different from the utility at vmd, where we welcome people to use the park and it may not actually be programmed or might not have people onsite. Thank you. And then just finally, i think the mitigations proposed sounded like there was a lot of work with the community. In future, i think we did this on 5m, too. It would be great to formalize those. Seems like they were done on the Developers Initiative with Community Members, but it would be good in the future. I support them to make those more part of the approval process and have some kind of more formal mitigation for shadow impact. But i think what has been proposed is appropriate and im glad that they were brought here and talked about in a public forum. Thank you. Commissioner richards. The basis for determining whether the shadow is adverse or not, as we had with 5m is really hanging its hat on the hours of operation of the park. Here we have a district that has a real probably the lowest of all in the supervisorial districts and maybe mr. Ginsburg could help me, were not increasing the number of parks in district 6. So the question i have at some point in the future would we increase the hours of operation that would include the time that the shadow is hitting the park . Do we have any rec centers anywhere in the city that open up before work or before school, say 7 00 or 8 00 and do you have plans to actually look at this . I will answer both parts of your question. Were looking at seriously at acquiring open space in district 6 and working with the open Space Task Force and the Planning Department have identified a couple of possibilities. Were wellaware of the factor that the charting character of the neighborhood has changed and open space is acutely important. I want to underscore the difference between a Recreational Center and park and gene friend is fundamentally a Recreational Center and space that is actively programmed. In an ideal world we would operate all facilities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In looking at gene friend, our goal is in recognition of the points that you have raised to expand programing at gene friend and actually increase space at gene friend. I think that the hours of operation are certainly on the table. Okay. I think overall here were looking at two Public Policy objectives. One is quality of public space and shadowing and Affordable Housing. I also do support commission hillis ask that we formally mitigate impacts. Commissioner low. I do have a question for stacey, what is the future plans for redevelopment of the Gene Friend Rec Center . Do any of those plans include active play areas . Integration of the sunlight with the rec center in the plans the plans are still in formation. We have four different options and i have images with me if you want to see them. The end goal will likely be something where the Recreation Center will be along 6th street because its the most active part of the park. That is where we want to bring people into the park. It is going to have a play area, but the play area will likely be in a similar location to where it is today. Somewhere on the harriet street side where its more protected from the main street. That corner where this new shadow will be placed is likely to be part of the park im sorry, part of the Recreation Center. It may have a garden on top. So there may be rooftop access with either exercise equipment or green space. Commissioner, let me kind of underscore the Feasibility Study we did was frankly, was largely a philanthropic gift and so we are very early in our planning and design stage. The different models based on do we renovate the existing site . Do we knock the whole thing down and start over . Or do we do something inbetween . That was the Feasibility Study that gave us some economic ranges. Where we dont have actually we dont were still work on a funding strategy for those. So i think there is plenty of opportunity remaining in a design process. We dont have an approved concept design. We havent completed community planning. This is just showing a range of options for what a project at gene friend could reveal . So we actually have flexibility to design to maximize sunlight. Just a followup question to that. What is the developers Community Benefit package as it relates to parks . What is the community the develop rs Community Benefit package as it relates to parks . Stacey. They provided 10,000 to the Gene Friend Rec Center for youth programming. That is what they were discussing with the 175 children over five years for programming. Then they are also sponsoring a movie night at vmd. They provided a plaque. They worked with the Filipino Community to formalize a plaque on vmd, i think it was a temporary sign that is now a bronze sign that explains who victoria Manalo Draves is. Okay. Commissioner antonini. I would assume staff will work with any of the future projects that might cast a shadow on gene friend park as they have in this case to, minimize or eliminate that or make it a nonsignificant as possible . So that is something for the future. It doesnt have to do with our approvals today, but im certain that will continue to happen. Also, i can attest to the fact that recreational areas on west side of the city have hours too and gates are closed and opened for security reasons and that makes a lot of sense. Because they are programmed for active recreational uses, and so its important to keep them secured during certain hours. So i would expect this is the same thing that applies to gene friend. Im going to move for the Planning Commission to raise the allowable cumulative shadow limit on Gene Friend Recreation Center by the appropriate amount. Ill take direction from staff as to with a we should pell out spell out on that. I think its. 02788 . Correct, its in the draft [kph eurgs ] commissioner richards. Are there any rec centers in the city now and prior that have been opened at 7 00 a. M. To the best of your knowledge . I think a lot of our Aquatic Centers are open early. And a basketball we try to program our facilities when we think well get the most amount of use. Your points are welltaken and part of it depends on the programmatic elements of the center are . We would very much sort of support and encourage more programs inside the building. The key thing about gene friend is this is fundamentally a building structure. There is outdoor space and the outdoor space is important, but its fundamentally the expansion that were talking about is increasing indoor space, indoor programmatic space. Thank you. Commissioner harrison. This is the appropriate time, i would like to make a motion . You can. You want to call the request question separately . Yes. I would like to ask a question about the 12 Housing Units that will be made available for rent. And do we have any idea of what the average rent costs would be for that . And how those units will be accessed . Bmr units provided will follow our establish the program guided by the Mayors Office on housing. For rental units they are required 55 at ami, which is right now around 70,000, i think, somewhere in that range. 55 of that. Less than that . So less than that. Commissioner, just so you know, there is a whole manual and policy that is established by the Mayors Office of housing that the Planning Commission reviews every year. The units are required to be scattered through the building. So they cant be on one floor on the lowerlevels or whatever. So well be following protocols on that . Okay. Thank you,. Commissioner mcdonnell. I know were getting to call the question, so i will be brief. It seems to me as were considering whether or not to raise the ceiling that the basis for it can and should be certainly stating the obvious, can and should be on the impact of the open space. It feels like a slippery slope when we begin to add to the consideration how good the company is. And i applaud realtek for their amazing commitment that has at least been described as others have done as well. So its just a comment that makes me uncomfortable because that could be a slippery slope as the company gets better in the ways that we deem good. That potentially forgiven, casts a shadow on the question of does the shadow have impact on the space . I think the data illustrates it has minimal impact on the space and that is really the point of question in my mind. Thank you for that clarity. Commissioner low. I also want to make sure this doesnt set a precedence for future projects coming before us. You know, we dont want another developer to come in to us and say, i made a 10,000 donation to Parks Alliance, and let me cast more shadow on a zerotolerance park. I believe there is a motion and second from the Planning Commission and a motion and second from the recreation and Park Commission. Do we have a second . Yes, second. Shall we call the question. Please. Commissioners, Planning Commission on that motion, to raise the cumulative shadow limit for Gene Friend Recreation Center, commissioner antioni. Aye. Commissioner hillis. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner richards aye. Commissioner wu. No. That passes 51 with commission wu voting q. Recreation and Park Commission, that motion passes. So were now on item 1b recreation and Park Commission action only the discussion of possible action by the recreation and Park Commission to adopt a resolution to recommend to the Planning Commission that the new shadow cast on Gene Friend Rec Center by the proposed project at 363 6th street will not be adverse to the use of the park as required by planning code section 295, the sunlight ordinance. Commissioners, do we have a motion or questions . So move second. Okay. Commission mcdonnell. Aye. Commissioner bonilla. Aye. Commissioner harrison. Aye. Commissioner low. Aye. Commissioner buell. Aye. Thank you, commissioners, that item passes. Commission buell, would you like to adjourn now . Id love to adjourn. Is there a motion to adjourn the recreation and Park Commission . So moved. Second. All those in favor . Aye. So moved thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Why don we why dont we give them a minute. Just for the benefit of the public, the recreation and Park Commission has adjourned, and will be leaving the chambers. The Planning Commission will remain in session to discuss the rest of the entitlements of the project. Commissioners may we proceed . Yes. Okay, commissioners. Then you have remaining items 1c and 1 d for adoption of findings in the large project authorization. You may call those questions separately or together. Commissioner antonini. I am in favor, but i just wanted to ask on the shadow issue, the shadows are effective one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. So it seems like and im not sure, this time of the year, the sun has been getting up a little later each day. And im wondering even though were considering, there must obviously be sun during times of the day that are under consideration . It looks like many times of the year, the sun is barely risen by the time were considering. I just thought i would make that point. Obviously, there must be some sunlight there to analyze the shadow. But its probably pretty minimal. And i am in favor based upon what has been presented before us to go ahead and support the regarding the use of the shadow allotment by this particular project. And i would make a motion to support that, to allow that to happen. Commissioner antonini, the commissions have jointly acted on cumulative shadow. This is for adoption of findings. Adoption of findings as the larger project authorization. Were doing them together. I didnt know we had to do another i thought we did one to raise the limit and hit a second one to allot that limit to this particular project . Correct. If the shadow is adverse to the use of the park is the finding that the Planning Commission can make now. Right. That is actually what i am making the motion on. That one segment on it. Understood. If we want to do it separately, because they are two separate questions. They are. Is there a second to that . Second. Thank you. Commission er richards i will save my comments for the lpa. Commissioner hillis . Were still on shadow . Were doing the findings first. Commissioners on the motion, commissioner antijoini. Aye. Commissioner hillis. Aye. Commission johnson . Aye. Commissioner rickets . Aye. Commissioner wu . No. Commission president fong. Aye. That passes 51, with commission wu voting no. I think the project is appropriate here. I appreciate the outreach, the Community Benefits that the developer has given from the arts and nonprofits. It provides City Council Housing onsite bmr, all good stuff. And im troubled by the allotment of the 5 and i would love to hear the process it looks apparent to me it one time recommended keeping the floor off to keep the project within the intent of the code. Can you talk to me about the journey about the recommendation . As part of the eastern neighborhoods plan we introduced or the commission and the board introduced the kind of 5 bumps within the code. For example, previously within this area, we only had like an 80 height limit and eastern neighborhoods included an 85 limit that would accommodate ground floor uses particularly nonresidential ground floor uses. Under the code ground floor uses have to have a 14 floortoceiling floor to floor height and the developer meets the intents of the code with providing floortoceiling height for the commercial space at the ground floorlevel. What it lent itself to for the remainder of the project is that by accommodating by providing for had a smaller floor plate, basically a smaller floortoceiling site they were able to accommodate an additional floor of residential use on the other half of the building. So typically in an 85 height limit, you would have a 14 ground floor; right . If it was a nonresidential ground floor. And then 8 floors sorry, excuse me, 7 floors above of residential use. In this case, we have nine floors total within an 85 Inez Tenenbaum limit. Height limit. Correct. We didnt find it adverse. Question for project sponsor. Thank you. We had 1532 harrison last week and why we came out actively supporting was a couple of reasons. One was that they went down 5 and all of their floors were 10 and addition they had a superior design where you could see through the building in two different places. I understand not to make any judgment on architecture, we have a completely different project, with pinched floors and a design that is good, but not superior. Question i have is you have thought about going down 5 like 1532 harrison and creating the 10 floortoceiling heights for each residential unit yes, we actually have. The reason for not doing that in this particular case is the project is located within a flood zone. So we have work very closely with dpw and public works and our civil engineer. Building actually has to be raised 2 feet on the frontage at the corner of clara and 6th street and how the building relates it to that issue. We felt it presented a lot of issues. Thank you. My other question for staff. The portion that is residential is not was never is not zoned commercial. It wasnt like the developer choose i want to put two units where we would have had a commercial space allowed. Correct. Okay. In case, the Zoning District or in this particular site doesnt have any required ground floor commercial uses. So its optional on their part whether or not they provide a commercial space or not. In our opinion a commercial space, from clara street and the other place where we have the two units on the bottom. What would you think about that . I would say given probably the character of 6th street we would probably recommend focusing the commercial towards 6th street. 6th correct is commercial . Correct. Thank you. They basically have their retail street on the corner of clara and 6th street. So they have frontage on clara and walk up on claraa basically. Commissioner hillis. Just a couple of questions along those lines of its interest, we had 1532 harrison, which kind of did similar things and we heard similar feedback about kind of getting an additional getting an additional floor within the height limit, which i think on its face is good. Right . Were adding more housing. Is the housing welldesigned . Is it appropriate . So can you just clarify, the floor to height that height what is that . The floortoceiling height as proposed is 86. That is of livable area. Correct. From the level of the carpet is up to where the ceiling would hit. And what is the code minimum for that . Its 7 per dbi, what dbi would allow. Okay. And what is the range we typically see in projects . Typically, well accommodate like a floortoceiling height of 10, knowing there is a floor slab of typically a foot, so 9 floortoceiling on average. 6 inches lower than average, but still. Right. Allowing in the code. I guess getting to this 5 plum issue in market octavia. A big misnomer is the 5 bump. Any development would be allowed to build up to 85 no matter what. So there is no bonus beyond the 85 level. In 2006 when they rezoned the site, they basically accommodated for the 5 level basically as an increase in our Zoning Districts n our height districts, which were to help accommodate for more gracious ground floor spacing if you were chosen to do for example, pdr or retail space on the ground floor level. Is the language the same in those other planned areas than in eastern neighborhoods . As far as i know, im fairly certainly market octavia is. In the nc corridors that sort of height as a quid pro quo, if you increase say the Commercial Area by 2 and its a 55 limit, you get 52 for the building. One other thing i wanted to add, historically this area was rsd to allow conditional use. This 85 has been in place for a long time there. How tall does the building have to be to take advantage of being able to do an extra floor . 65 floor building take advantage is there enough room with same floor to ceiling height . Could you do the same thing . In theory, they could. I know that in talking with the development team, they are also using a different construction model that is allowing them to keep correct . That is allowing them to keep. Their slab. Their slab smaller than what is typical. And probably given the height of the overall, its different, you know . Because depending on the height, its a different range of construction that is basically allowed on these projects. Okay. Im supportive. I think its a creative way, just as we saw on harrison street. You may prefer or not the harrison Street Project, but there is some issues of going down. Also, i think we have the issue of having shorter floortoceiling heights here. But i think its an interesting way to get more housing and actually stay within the height highlights. So im supportive. I think maybe in the future we should perhaps take a look at how the market octavia plan works and how this does and clarify that language in the intent. I think ultimately its good to get extra livable floors of housing and all that comes with it, fees and Affordable Housing. So im supportive. Commissioner antonini. I have a couple of comments and a question. First of all i would urge project sponsor, if this should be approved to continue to work as the project moves forward to outreach to all parts of the community as far as how its being built and who is going to build it and everything . Its not of course a condition, but its certainly something that i would like to see the project sponsor to do. As per earlier conversation, in terms of the height, its very clear that they have the 18 retail. Which i have had some letters that have questioned that, but they satisfy all points as far as the height and its allowed. And they have more than enough on the ground floor retail. The other question that was raised is a little confusing. It was that the ground entries to the ground floor units have to be 35 above grade. Im hearing two different things. First of all, i think project sponsor said they had to raise the whole thing 2 to start with at clara and 6th and then i understand there is a 2 raise to the beginning of the porch, that will address the units and also i think that is an 8 porch and maybe mr. Sucre could talk about that because that more that satisfies with it with a broad porch. Correct. In looking at this with the urban design team, basically the ground floor residential Design Guidelines provide guidelines for what is typical. And what we would often ask an architect to consider, when developing walkup units basically at the street. Its not a strict its not a strict formula in terms of options, like in terms of how you basically accommodate the effect were looking for . This it case, since the project sponsor is only raising a couple of feet off the sidewalk grade, having a deeper courtyard was supported by our design team and our design professionals. Because it still allows for enough activity basically at street and allows for privacy and usage of the private terraces that are basically fronting directly on to the street. So basically the higher you go, the shallower you can make that open space, the lower to the ground, the deep you are you want go to basically make sure that you accommodate for livability and privacy as well. Thank you very much. I certainly support that. Because i think of situations involving the two figure into each other and think its a good compromise. Commissioner hillis im sorry, commissioner wu. Okay. So i just want to ask a couple of questions. Im looking at the flan flan plan of the groundfloor. All of the frontage basically all of the space that fronts on to 6th street, the lobby, the Community Room and retail all have the 18 floor it ceiling height. Okay. And on the drawing it says Community Room says possible pg e transformer room. Is it in the condition of approval that it has to be a Community Room . Correct, it does. So if they to accommodate a transformer room, obviously the Community Room would be likely reduced in size and ends up being a pg e requirement, but they have to have the room on a public street, if they cant have the transformers poles on sidewalk. So it would likely be a corner of the room . Correct. Thank you. Commissioner hillis. I would move to approve item 1d, large project authorization. Second. Commissioners a motion has been seconded to approve the large project authorization on that motion, commissioner antonini. Aye. Commissioner hillis. Aye. Commission johnson. Aye. Commissioner richards. No commissioner wu. No. Commission president fong. Aye. Passes 42 with commissioners richards and wu voting against. Commissioners, that was the last item on this agenda, and i do apologize. I did not foresee us ending this so quickly. Our next hearing cannot start before 3 00 p. M. , so well have an extended break. Okay, well take a little longer lunch break and reconvene here a little before 3 00. Good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission regular hearing for thursday, october 15th, 2015. I would like toremind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disrug or outburst of any kind and to please silence my mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. If you care to please state your name for the record. Commissioners i would like to quake roll call, Commission President fong. Here commission wu. Her. Commissioner absentioni. Here. Commission johnson. Here. We expect commissioners moore and hillis to be absent. Firsts first on your agenda is consideration for items proposed for continuation estimation item 112011. 0671x at 1395 11 uped street and pennsylvania avenue, a local project authorization for continuance to november 12, 2015 and item 2 for case no. 20 11006712pca requirement for cu requirement for residential mergers. Proposed for continuace to december 10th, 2015. Any Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance . Not seeing any Public Comment is closed. And commissioner antonini. I think my mic is off. I could talk loudly. Thank you. There we go. Good. I make a motion to continue items 1 and 2 to the dates specified. Second. Very good, commissioners. Thank you on that motion to continue items as proposed. Commission antonini. Aye. Commissioner johnson . Aye. Commissioner richards . Aye. Commission wu . Aye. And Commission President fong. Aye. So moved commissions, that motion passes unanimously 50 and places you under your consent calendar, all matters listed constitute a consent calendar. Are 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 unless a member of commission, public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a separate hearing. You have one item under consent, no. 3, case no. 2015008251cua, 2120 greenwich street, a conditional use authorization. Any Public Comment on the one item on the consent calendar . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed commissioner antonini. Move to approve. Second. On that motion to approve item 3 under consent, commission anioni. Aye. Commission johnson. Aye. Commission richards . . Commissioner wu. Commission president fong. Aye approved 50. Item c commission matters draft minutes for september 3rd and october 1st. Any Public Comment . Seeing none, commission richards. I move to approve september 3d and have a minor correction on october 1. So noted. Second. I seconded. Yes. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion than to dopt the minutes for september 3rd, 2015 and october 1st, 2015, as corrected by commission richards, commission antonini. Aye. Commission johnson. Aye. Commission wu. Aye. Commission president fong. Aye. That passes 50. Commission antonini . Thank you. I thought that presentation by the member of the rent board was extremely informative last week. I have some comments, but first i have a question. They mentioned that their owners are allowed to raise residential rates an amounts not to exceed 60 of the cip of the San Francisco bay area per year. Is that cumulative or is it use it or lose it . You could bank it. You can you bank it. Okay. That important that it be done. We have stayed that with kind formula and kept of the rates exactly not that formula, but more closer to the cpi. The other thing that was really interesting when you look at the chart of the evictions and were hearing a lot about it now, i dont remember quite as much comment during the period 19992000, but there were a lot more in that period, in the range of 2700 to 2800, still a lot this year. If you look at the chart for the long period of time, almost every year there are 1400 on average or more than that, probably. So what also was very interesting to me is find out that 75 of the evictions were for fault such as nonpayment of rent. Which is probably something is going to happen no matter what conditions we have, because if you dont pay the rent, you are going to get evicted. There might be a tendency for owners to try to evict people a little quicker if there are a lot more renters around to take the spot. Its good to put things in perspective and see the Historical Perspective to talk into the context of 20 years to realize what is the situation is. I thought it was extremely good and very navative. Nothing further, commissions we can move on to department matters, item 6, directors announcements. Thank you, jonas. I just wanted to let you know that i spent this last weekend in cambridge, a meeting i attend every year with my counterparts in the 30 largest cities in the country. There were several well, several points of discussion, but i will say that the most common theme that all cites are addressing are issues of equity and Affordable Housing in ways that were surprising to me and in places that were supposing to me. Even in my hometown detroit, which has experienced severe economic distress and just came out of bankruptcy and concerns as areas are improved, the equity issues that residents are facing and the type of rent reindevelopment reinvestment is happening and its interesting to hear about that happening across the economic spectrum and it was a theme that came up repeatedly in the three days of meetings that we had. That concludes my comments. Thank you. Item 7 review of past events at board of supervisors and board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission. The Zoning Administrator told me that the board of appeals met yesterday, but there were no items that pertained to the commission. There is no board report excuse me, the Historic Preservation commission did not meet yesterday which will place under general Public Comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. At this time the members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subjectmatter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. Any general speaker cards . Hell yes commissioners tony kelly Vice President of the potrero boosters. We looked at the advance calendar and when are we going start having a conversation and actual Commission Hearing about design in the eastern neighborhoods for these large projects . There were two large projects. One was continued today. One was continued a couple of weeks ago coming up on november 12th. There is no room it look like for discussion of design issues before that happens. So the problem that was raised months ago, and most recently here over the past few weeks is still there. Which is we know we desperately need help on Design Standards and Design Review for these large projects. And yet the projects are coming to you before we have a chance to do anything about it. What i just gave to you are the Design Reviews of the latest ones for both projects. Its a total of ten sentences for both projects combined. These are large projects. They take a couple of acres a piece, folks. 550 Housing Units and yet there is hardly any discussion of the architecture. We met with individual commissioners and heard many negative comments about their design and havent heard a single positive comment about their designs. So when commissioners are we actually going to do this . Are we going to try to redesign these buildings on the fly at the commission on the 12th . I think you know, because you had to go through that before. I think you know and we know that is really not the way to go. We urge you to have some sort of conversation at least about design and preferably some Design Standards, guidelines, principles, something that we need to follow to improve these projects . Because were not going to get improved architecture or improved designs for all of these blocky, monotonous, mindnumbing buildings in this format does not do it. We are negotiating and working with the two developers on their projects, but were not able to put design on the table. That is your job. That is on your desk. That is exactly what you guys can do as commissioners. And were desperate for your help on that. Were preparing ron mcgill, i think you have heard of him and i from the boosters are preparing a presentation we want to give you as part of the hearing about design issues, but we dont have a time to do that the we cant do it during Public Comment. We need to have conversation before get to the large projects. Otherwise its going to be a real scrum when the projects coming up along with Everything Else and potential approval of the project and that doesnt lead to better buildings. That is how we have gotten into the architectural mess we have in potrero and hope we can have discussion. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment . General Public Comment is closed. Commissioners that places under your regular calendar item 8, a Market Street hub informational presentation. Commissioners id like to welcome mia small to the commission. While mia has been with the staff for a couple of years this is her first presentation to the Planning Commission. Mia has been with us two years as a staff architect. For the previous ten years she ran an architectural practice based in rhode island focused on urban design and earned her professional working for architects in San Francisco and new york and graduate of the department has forwarded a memo to you and were following up with additional details. This project arrives at intersection of two of the departments priorities. Increasing Affordable Housing, and supporting the quality of San Franciscos public realm. And two exist efforts. The hub is one of the key areas identified in the heart of city placebased initiative to further establish Market Street as San Franciscos premiere civic street and enhance the livability of its neighborhoods. This component represents the westernmost portion and represents gateways and connections to other citywide initiatives in civic center and Market Street. Historically this neighbor was known as the hub, that hosted street lines that reached across the city. The heart of the citys goals are not only to make great public space, but to help neighborhoods in into Market Street and make sure that they are welcome and accessible to all. Along with the heart of the city this project also seeks to build upon and refine the market octavia plan that defines this area as soma west. Not to be confused with western soma. Its a completely separate area. And encourage the formation as relatively highdensity mixeduse residential neighborhood as it is immediately adjacent to significant transit. This is the boundary of the area were talking about not only the eastern notch of market octavia indicated in orange and the line defines the edge of the area plan in general. There is a small dashed or dotted red line that indicates the van nes van ness and market, including the muni station. This is the defined area were talking about. It takes one small corner out, and part of that is adjacency to the public realm plan. We have met with the Community Advisory committee three times since may for input on the shape of this effort and hear their feedback, along with an interesting in affordability potential. We heard their highlighted concern was desire to capture the best public realm improvements in a time frame that also takes advantage of the Current Development attention. This has helped form the scope and goals that i will describe next. So what are the scope and goals for the hub project in . Really two components make up this effort. The first is rezoning and second is public realm plan and i will talk about the former first. So the most important goal of the rezoning effort would be to increase the amount of Affordable Housing. Current applications and Pipeline Projects anticipate 3700 new Housing Units with just over 700 affordable ones. Through some initial Data Analysis with consultant strategic economics, we found that by making modest adjustments to height and bulk, rezoning could increase affordability requirements and add 700 below marketrate units. Essentially if inclusionary requirement was increased to 23 onsite and 38 offsite, half of the units would be affordable, getting us to the 33 . Note that in this change 600 units being added and then 700 being affordable, obviously the 700 is larger than 6 alcohol. So the additional amount is offsite increased and also the fees that are going inlieu. Second is to increase transit current projections estimate new net parking or sort of offstreet parking to be about 1900 Parking Spaces or about. 5 per unit. That is what we look at under existing conditions under the market octavia an effort that would not only benefit residents of the hub, but the city as a whole. The rezoning study would also look at parking reductions to decrease the impacts on transit at this large multimodal intersection, and provide a more pedestrian and bikefriendly you environment. With. 25 reductions per unit, even with the significant increase of units there is actually an overall parking reduction. So it actually drops 500 spaces to 1400 spaces within the hub area. The third goal would be in supporting the arts. This area currently hosts several important arts organizations including the San Francisco [ music [ music ] [ music [ music ] conservatory and Ballet School and honda site. Providing space supports cultural ecosystem of the center. The hub rezoning would also study the mix of the uses making heuer that what while its intended to be a residential neighborhood there is such a balance at a transit location of all uses. Additional goals include making sure height adjustments are thoughtfully scoped. Skyline will be a prominent highrise district from vantage points across the city, specifically the west. I would like to talk about the public realm plan as the second portion of the project. The goal of this effort is to build more specificity into the conceptual groundwork approved in the market octavia plan so they will be knitted together. So market octavia has an approved plan and this is simply look at it more detail as development actually approaches. As the hub contains one of the largest intersections in the city, Market Street and van ness avenue, and a way to support the larger heart of the City Initiative would be to establish public plazas that befit the scale and importance of the crossroads, add a jewel to the public space necklace of market space and inviting gateways into the neighborhoods and beyond. A second focus area is to build upon the market octavia public realms to foster safe neighborhoods and make sure that the several requires midblock alleys, c3 parcels that meet the requirements for midblock alleys here, these Work Together as a neighborhood pattern. Well continue to work with the market octavia cac for additional Public Engagement and outreach as the effort moves forward. What is actually shower shown here is the public realm plan for the area. And to support the neighborhood in defining its identity. Many large contemporary projects arrive in a burgeoning residential neighborhood. Due to the windy conditions of this part of the city, this project is expected to have similar features. For example, towers will likely be round in shape have canopies and will consider the overall effects of how shapes and evolving character. And finally this effort offers a revisited eir process that can more precisely describe the potential impacts of high rices rises. It will be county of to understand the larger cumulative wind patterns so we have the best and accurate outcomes for the neighborhood. We hope this effort can produce the best possible public benefit. Im happy to take your questions. Thank you. We may have questions. Opening up to Public Comment, if there is any . Seeing no Public Comment, close Public Comment. Commissioner antioni. And thank you for the report. There was a time when a portion of south have van ness did no exist and Howard Street turns to van ness from mission on Howard Street. That is why you the streets moving in strange angles. Coming up howard i have to make maneuvers to get back on van ness north or south. That is one thing that makes it more difficult. The other thing you mentioned diminishing the number of residential parking places. But that is only a small percentage of the traffic. Most people park their cars and then they go about their business. What most of the traffic is from these are major streets, and people have to get from north to south or east to west. And that is going to continue to happen. The best solution would have been a subway under van ness which some day we may do. There is going to be the same number of carspt people have to get particularly on u. S. 101, where they are moving northern and they really dont want to be in San Francisco, but they are forced to go through San Francisco. I think we have to be farsighted enough to make decisions base on longterm planning to minimize tract impacts and not think traffic isnt going to be there just because we have fewer parking places. The other thing about the public plaza, i think its a great idea. You mentioned the wind. Its a factor. Its always going to be there. I am sure we can design wind screens or something and the other is to have the plaza subgrade, which has not been successful with the lady plaza. If its properly set up and policed properly, then it might work and that would cut some of the wind off. But probably the best idea is to not only scope the buildings to try to minimize wind, but realizing wind is going to be there, then put up some sort of screen to the plaza, to make it more inviting. Thank you for an interesting plan. Director. I wanted to reinforce a couple of things thatmia said. While this is say piece of market octavia plan approved in 2008 i believe its 2008 its also consistent with the work plan that we have looked at for the stretch of Market Street that we call the heart of the city. Its important to recognize were doing elements of work such as the civic center and tenderloin and south of market neighborhoods. So this is a piece of that overall length of market in those neighborhoods. So its consistent with the fiveyear plan we presented to you a few months ago, that gill presented to you as our longrange plan. Also does a number of things within the market octavia plan, and the most important of which is the issue of Affordable Housing. And were happy to talk in more detail with the numbers that we have initially come up and how we got there . But those combination of factors is what drove us to actually think about doing this. To be honest, opening a plan that is now 7yearsold is not something i would normally do, but in this case we think there is a number of distinct advantages to doing this that we think is worth doing. So it would be helpful to hear your thoughts on that as us having us move forward at this point . Because we would like to start in ernest. Were already doing the initial scoping of the eir and getting prepared to hire consultants to start that eir work, which of course will be the longest timeframe that we have on this project. So i just wanted to reinforce that and get your sense of what is going ahead on this in the next few weeks . Thanks. Thank you. Commission johnson thank you very much. Very interesting. Im just going to ask a couple of quick questions. The first one is i totally understand the public realm sort of changes and certainly with the parking streetscape and i think i get all of that. It sounds to make this work we need some sort of neighborhoodlevel design changes in terms of thinking about buildings that were you talking about awnings and talking about buildings being curved. Some of that will comes a result with eirs for specific projects that you have to curve it so you dont have impacts for winds and shadow and things like that. Are there any other sort of global sort of Design Guidelines or planning code changes that are result from this to get the streetscape were looking for . I dont think there would be specific guidelines for this area. There are certainly existing market octavia ones that will fit fairly well. Project sponsors are already coming forward and i think what is interesting about this plan, there is already a lot in place. Now project sponsors are actually moving forwards this process will happen. So we have kind of a unique opportunity to really help shape specific parcels with their site design. Or help them through that process. And having them being aware of the other projects nearby, so they can kind of Work Together of the were also working with the cac, and well be doing some outreach in specific areas. For example, the brady block, working with residents there on the more specific targeted areas. So i dont know that there would be guidelines per se, but i also colead Design Review with the department. So i see it from the that side as well. Thank you for that. Obviously i think staff has done a fantastic job with site Design Review before things get to us. I think it would be helpful to think about what are sort of the overarching guidelines or changes that can be made . So that its not just about the Design Review, but as things get to us and they are inconsistent with what we want to see, that you are not leaving the Planning Commission to have to be the keepers of consistency. For sure. Were good at it most of the times, but it there are overriding elements for specific projects, sometimes we have to make other decisions. I would like to not see that degrade the quality that you want to see that we all want to see for the hub. I think there been some aspects like canopies for example, that will be consistently seen simply because of the wind conditions. That is a kind of new thing and scale were looking at in the area and an element that might be appropriate in terms of what you are talking about. One other question, maybe two. Quick question. So obviously were the Planning Commission we see designs that are dpw or mta, are you getting similar feedback from them in terms of changes and whether or not some of these things will work or what not . Yes, we have been talking to mta in particular, quite extensively over the last few months. But this is an aarea of big concern for them, in terms of capacity on Market Street and also the van ness station. What happens at what we call the four corners where market and van ness come together. Mission street, there is is a lot of improvement with btr and better Market Street. So we have been in close collaboration with them and i believe they have some staff assigned to be working on this quite directly. Okay. Last thing, crazy idea coming from a Planning Commissioner, feel free to just tell me im crazy. This area is right off the 80 and 81. An normally i wouldnt advocate for this, because im 100 about our transitfirst policy. I think in service of making sure that we get cars off the road in that area and we can support not having parking, has there been any thought to undergrounding parking underneath some of the realm or talking about that in other areas to eliminate cars driving around the area all together . I normally wouldnt say that, but because of its proximity to sort of two major highway interchanges that come together and come off a couple of blocks from there. I think talking about satellite parking and things like that for the area will be really helpful in supporting the streetscape changes and really being able to make the super walkable you dont see any cars really anywhere except for the residents who live right around there, just a crazy idea. All right, thank you. Commissioner wu. Thank you. So i want to ask more about the Affordable Housing projections. So first, you wrote in your presentation modest high and bulking increases. Can yougy give a scope or range of what that might be . Its a little difficulty because the towers. Modest for a small building is different than for a large buildings. For example, were not entering any of that territory. We have studied a number of different increases the increases more in the 1015 , i think its been a few sites. Its trying to sort of take what is there and like i say, modestly adjust it rather than really transform it by type. Not taking a podium building and transferring into a tower, for example. There are only a handful of sites. Typologies of the lower buildings can be in some case its just adding height to something with significant height . If i could add, there are sites at 400 and sites at 320. And 250. So those are sites we would think we would add to be fair, i think its more than 1015 with some of the scenarios were looking at. The idea is to only add it where there is already zoning for very tall buildings, just to be simple about it. Okay. On the Affordable Housing numbers, so you gave the existing is 3700 units total and 700 bmr, assume built in the hub onsite. That is the projection, yes and that includes some offsite as well. Is the offsite inside the hub . I cant remember the rule, is it a mile . I believe its market octavia that is within the mile . The only question is whether there is Something Different from market octavia. Whether it is or not, its the onemile radius. You have 600 new units im not understanding the 600 versus 700. Right. A lot of it because a lot of it is ending more specific numbers, which talk about exactly how many of those units so you get up to around the 4300, its a little less than that. With the level 1 or 23 , 38 inclusionary and fees. And then about just a little under 500 of those are considered onsite. And then 900 are considered the offsite. So these were sort of the back of the envelope numbers that strategic is looking at a preliminary step. It hasnt gone through the rigorous analysis, but the ballpark range. Maybe i will step back because there are different scenarios you are looking at. I dont think we can talk about offsite as part of what you are gaining as part of the project ; right . Offsite is only controlled by the 1mile radius. There is no guaranties in the hub. So if you get to more specificity about that, i think we can say its in the hub. But right now there is nothing to guarantee that. The presentation looks like you are adding 600 units, but all 600 of those would have to be affordable to reach 33 . So there is say little bit of yes. I have more specific information here. I would about happy forward the breakdown. Its more the effects of the hub than literally in the hub. Okay. I think the question for be is about value you that is what everybody is looking at. So i want to make sure whatever value is being conveyed by height or bulk increases equals the value that were getting out of more units. And public realm and arts. So i want to make sure that the calculations are done at the earliest time so we know what the tradeoffs are. In the timeline, i assume you go through eir first. When you would be able to even think about doing a central soma type of analysis . Good question. It would certainly be wellbefore the eir process. So concurrent . I think with my want to develop more specifically the height and bulk scenarios to have an idea to run the calculation and make some urban design assumptions and physical scenarios before we do that. My guess is 68 months down the road before we might get there. Right now we have currently two scenarios and the one i presented was the more modest one. There is one that looks at slightingly larger. To be clear on onsite versus offsite. Onsite is consistent citywide, offsite is within a mile, except for transbay which has peculiar requirements. I mean the way we have been thinking about the prop k goal is that its 33 citywide. So were trying to see if we can reach 33 of the units produced in this area to be affordable . Whether they are in the area or not i see your thinking. I have been thinking about this more as a project; right . I have been thinking about it more as an sud. Usually within the sud you keep the benefits within the sud; right . Commissioner, staff, if i could add some commentary. This sort of analysis that mia has gone over with terms of percentage is the except same methodology we have talked about central soma and looking at how we achieve 33 objectives in combination of onsite, offsite and units built through all of the fees and its important to also remember that this area in the hub has a special use district that generates additional Affordable Housing fees in lieu of tdr and other fees that goes into a pot to build Affordable Housing. So those additional fees are being counted as well in terms of how many units. Those have considered in the baseline scenario; right . They are considered in the baseline, as well as the increment that would be added through whatever increment is considered through the rezoning. Okay. You know, i am open. I just want to call it what it is; right . I think for me central soma is much bigger. So it is more than one square mile in diameter, or whatever in diameter. So this really feels much more like a project to me, than an area plan. But i could comment differently if we sort to look at the Square Footage a little more carefully. Commissioner richards. Interestingly enough we have talked several times about eastern neighborhoods and area plans and how they need to be iterative and to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time were going to rezone rezoning. So i think this is a good thing and we should be looking at this in other area plans as well. Happy to support increased height for increased affordability. Its a great tradeoff. Im concerned to see what the numbers look like. I was a child of market octavia and we never had a tower built there yet. So i cant remember whether what the Design Principles do look like . But generally what my recollection is that they for more modest buildings, middle, base and top, that you certainly wont apply to a tower, but im concerned what the design looks like . One of things on the market octavia cac, people who are moving in the buildings, what is rate of ownership . That would be an interesting number to look at completely supporting reduced parking and such a major transit hub. I would love to see what that looks like. In terms of the Design Guidelines one thing specific to market octavia is having the tower being a little setback or articulated from the tower. That is a little bit recessed and that the podium becomes a stronger influence to the experience off the street. Good. Thanks commissioner antonini. Im not sure on your affordability, but i would venture to guess you do a dial type of thing, like we have discussed . You have raised the level of affordability, but some of the increased affordability is levels up tot to the 140th percentile and the subsidy that the developer has to put in is less because they dont have to do so much subsidy to make it pencil out. That might allow you to not have to make towers as high and dense if you do some of the dial if you do the dial then you are going to get more Affordable Housing by that definition. With the higher and denser towers. That is just a thought. The other thing that commissioner johnson brought up and i thought really important is to find a place for people to dump their cars close to the freeway. Coming off the central freeway, right by the Planning Department, or Mission Street meets the central freeway, dubose and 13th street is a constant stream of cars. If those people could be made to put many of their cars into garage coming right off the freeway and handy transportation to take them a few blocks to the north, to go to the symphony, the opera, the jazz, the ballet, all of the things that people will continue to come to and will not take Public Transportation from a lots of suburban locations. Especially elderly people or people with challenges will want to drive as close as they can and to find a way for them to dump their cars will keep them from driving forth to get into either Civic Center Garage or the one by the performing arts, both of which are almost impossible to get into when there is an event at night. So that is an important thing to look at. Understood. Commissioner richards one other question i had, a while back i recall seeing schematics to scale it back and create a plaza. There is there any discussion or is that a dead idea . There was no discussion and its not part of market octavia that were using as a base. Bringing the freeway down is part of a larger discussion. Transportation is obviously the hub will not solve some of the larger transportation issues and connections here. So that is another project. But we want to also make sure whatever we do facilitates some of those larger ideas and we are not doing some that will interrupt that potential. Thanks director. I wanted to summarize what i heard going ahead. This is a wouldyear work effort for us and i wanted to make sure were on the same page. The issues and concerns that i heard is that were making sure we mail nail down the Value Capture and maximize housing with scenarios of middleincome housing depending on how the numbers work out. Parking making sure we looking at the parking numbers and intercept Parking Facility of some kind of lots of issues raised about design and making sure that particularly in this area of highrises, looking at the market octavia Design Guidelines and how those could be enhanced in the area . And also concerns and issues about the public realm and how that could be further grown and enhanced and made much more pedestrianfriendly, since this is where our offices are, one of the most pedestrianunfriendly areas in the city. If that is a good summary, well take that and make sure we incorporate your questions and comment into the next phase of work. Thank you. Thank you. Next item, please. Commissioners all right 9 for case no. 2014001503gpa, the Affordable Housing bonus general plan amendment. Hello commissioners. You will hear from staff who have done an outstanding job in rusting down a housing policy to present to you. I wanted to talk about a broader scope look at our housing policy and where this particular piece of housing policy fits. So by 2020 the mayor is committed to committing 10,000 units for low and moderateincome housing. And spending plan that is roughly about 1. 3 billion in order to facilitate those changes. This includes recently changes to that we were able to facilitate up at the statelevel with the help of governor brown. To create and rapidly construct areas in the former redevelopment areas. I will say its particularly helpful because the governor recently vetoed a tax credit bill. So the ability to get this bill through, i think, is really monumental in the face of, i think, of the absence of state support, and federal support as well. What we are spending our 1. 3 billion over the next six years on is overwhelmingly to serve low and moderate income households. That is done for a number of reasons, including the greatest yield in leverage that we can get with state and local funds. But its also because this we have made a policy choice where our precious subsidies are going to those who are most in need. This is also demonstrated in the housing bonds that is on the ballot in november as well. So what we are asking for you to support and for you to initiate for a meeting on november 5th is really the centerpiece of our middleincome program. This is a program that were asking to you support, which does not provide any type of public subsidy towards it. And i think that done by design. We did it because we understand typically these subsidies should flow for the greatest in need, but also because of where the sites are situated. Where we expect these sites to be developed from. These are areas of the city that have embraced middleincome and have seen it as a value statement. And so we wanted to make sure that the housing that is created kind of matches the neighborhood need as it has been defined by us and by some of the neighbors who have commented over time. So this is a real opportunity for us to support and put forward a middleincome program. And this is unapologetically that and to make you aware of the overwhelming bulk of what were putting forward for the city is for low and moderateincome housing efforts. The tea tear down and rebuilding of the large projects of the Housing Authority which will be phased in without the displacement of the existing residents. Where we layer on tax credit units, as well as marketrate units. We have created also the Small Sites Program looking at targeting sites with residentings atrisk of displacement and you preserving as Affordable Housing for households between 80120 of area median income. We rustled for a long time and came from the mayors Housing Working Group two years ago, one the ways to facilitate more middleincome units and not doing it at the expense of our lowincome households. What we have before you is really the Center Component of that. Kirsten did washing you through walk you through the details and ask for your support in initiativing support for initiating the Public Meetings so thank you. Thanks jeff Planning Department staff im here with the team and shes handing you guys materials that include vishldz of the presentation today and comments weve received from the public on this item today as jeff said were here to ask for you to initiate the general plans you mean we made it before an adoption hearing ask for youre hearing this is what were doing today, the substance of the Affordable Housing including the consideration of the legislation is scheduled for november 5th we want to time the conversation before we talk about what is in the general plan i could give you a full presentation on the Housing Program. Ill try to go quickly over the points jeff already covered one of the piece out of the mayor working group and one of the needs springboard for moving forward is the state and city big bonus law since the late 90 when the developers provide an Affordable Housing they have been having an incentive the state superior court suggested the configuration Housing Program which ours dodo trigger the Affordable Housing or the density bonus and that was the beginning of our work and planning process and we started working with the architecture and libby a Financial Consultant additional also the mayors working group that brought together Affordable Housing with the developers and Affordable Housing developers and financiers to help us craft a solution but were also informed by the recent adopted 2014 Housing Element that called for the Density Bonus Program and prop k that cowled for 33 percent of all new housing to be affordable and this is 60 or 63 of the voters support and supervisor tang did in the sunset around the blueprint that helps o helped us to understand the middleincome housing and the opportunities for the weermz so as jeff said eloquently this is one of the many tools in the whole package. So we started the program with 4 policy goal to incentivize higher goal as you may know 12 percent is required in the inclusionary hours but we wanted to see it higher and this is a tool for that additionally a number of sites in the city not feasible and the density benefits that can be granted along with higher levels of visibility make those feasible the middleincome program and finally to facilitate one hundred percent of Affordable Housing entitlements the map before you is our program area or our study and were b that includes the city allows the residential uses and regulates the unit by rash to lot area to 6 hundred and one to 8 hundred as opposed to the base code that regulated by descended and bulk generally those areas require or allow commercial on the ground floor so that there are major show corridors or mixed use Commercial Areas they are always within a quarter of a mile in the muni thirty thousand parcels in the program area thats a large portion of the city 20 percent both parcels have Healthy Buildings are not going back going to be affected and not change we think actually that is 200 and 40 sites that will benefit over a 20year period their evenly distributed throughout the program area and we made that determination based on the uses and the future potential so anything that has you know a parking lot or a oneStory Building might be considered in the analysis this chart show us the overhead kind of what i was describing a scenario about the program could generate over a 20year period if all the 200 and 40 soft Sites Development in the zoning controls 4 hundred plus units that would be nine hundred affordable inclusionary units in the same 200 and two to three sites choose to participate in the state practical well see 10 thousand total units about 15 hundred would be affordable at the inclusionary level. Under the local program that number of inclusionary units goes up to 2 thousand so that is more than double what were allowing now in terms of of the level of affordability and adds 3 thousand middleincome units and we built 16 thousand total units again, this is over a 20year period we expect the development to happen over time we dont think all the units will were in between the 16 thousand this helps you to compare the program. Theres been a lot of conversation how each the programs serve and as jeff articulated this is one of the many tolls we have and this program does generate housing for people at the 50 percent ami through the Inclusionary Program also the 80 and 90 percent ami and it tops out with the middleincome Program One Hundred that with 20 percent for renter of a hundred and 40 percent ami for homeowners this is sort the Newest Program new to our city Affordable Housing portfolio so again two programs within the Affordable Housing Bonus Program one of the state program and one of the local program the state has two of the goals the local programs hits those two a little bit harder weve incentivised more sites feasible and hit the middleincome goal with the local programs and help hundred percent be affordable programs and the team we were able to understand how a project in San Francisco given the inclusionary unite i unit requirements maxes out the state program theyll have thirteen percent of to be routine by the Planning Commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote on site and an ownership 20 percent of those units onsite and then for that we be graduated up to 35 percent increase in their allowable density theyll be 40 or 50 units i like to talk about hundred that that is easier for the market if youre a hundred unit the maximum bonus under the States Program allows you one hundred 35 units under 9 state program were only offering the height benefits if you need them it is in the draft planning code that was introduce do by the Mayors Office in theres enough room in the volume you you think wouldnt get additional heights we know in those cases might mean half of the sites need no height some need one story and some twostory but no more than that that is the maximum allowed and then addition to the density and height the state law requires we offer some concessions and things we grant flou flue in the various or modification process w is available through those projects so the local program its different we assume weve would have he get thirty percent not a series of options it is required to have thirty percent affordable and the next 18 percent is middleincome so this rather than the density we offer the code in market octavia additional to it is regulated by height and bulk and also 40 percent two prepare requirement making sure were having Family Housing with the local programs. And these projects will be given the two stories additional if youre height limit was 40 youll be able to go up to 60 and if 60 up to. So hundred percent affordable that is part of the local program for all projects basically, the same program as the local program density by height and bulk but were allowing 3 stories rather than two and lobbying u allowing pertaining to extend their entitlement to many years this helps them to get their financing together we worked with the Mayors Office of housing to make sure we are including all the things to expedite their process right away right now project that these hundred percent affordable have to come back and do entitlements rather than causing an additional process remove those. I want to provide you all a sense of what is in the legislation well have a hearing on november 5th those are the kinds of incentives so both how much Affordable Housing they mitigate offer the rear yard exposure and parking and open space and loading. And so in terms of of the next steps the legislation was introduced by the mayor and supervisor tang on september 29th we had a small informational hearing with you in the next two weeks 3 Public Events a web napper and open house on the 26 another city hall and myself and other staff will be joining supervisor tang on the sunset on the 29 and on november 5th returning to your commission for a hearing on the legislation we are hoping to also include amendments to the general plan and to summarize in our case report there are two kinds of amendments one is to a number of the maps in the general plan that have height or density limits weve opposed to have a clause with greater affordability on site to permit heights several height and larger than the mapping so larger than the general plan maps with density those changes are reflected in whichever cheaper and the land use weve also proposed adding language to 3 general plan to further articulate how those programs will service the microfilm and meets the Affordable Housing goal to jeff and i are here for questions were looking for an action for a intion. calling names . Good afternoon, commissioners im a resident 43 years in the Richmond District and it will appear from everything im hearing and serging this affordable bonus plan applies to the entire city the map indicates the richmond i was surprised to hear weeks ago on the website of our neighborhood and it just it seems to me this thing is being hurried through without Public Comment no Public Comment hearings additional with brt with the citys almost six months worth of hearing with the mta and sfmta weve heard nothing about any of this we have problems with the increased height on either the geary, clemente or california aerials because for instance, essentially a 6 Story Building totally out of scale not too bad on the south side of geary the shadow would be on the streets but on the north side there will be a lot of homes no shadow some of them in endless shadow its unusual to be in a house and look up 60 feet with windows looking at your yards one of the problems we do have existing structures both rh2 and some that have 6 units that have rentcontrolled unit agreements and that ellis act will be used to remove the tenants and many of the tenants i know one in particularly particular on clemente street who is a war veteran with a disabled wife theyll have to move in trying to do good youre doing a great deal of harm and beyond that on my plain clothes between geary and clemente we have two believes that are rentcontrolled from the owner choose at the, put a 6 Story Building in the middle of a block im sorry. You have 25 seconds left. Oh, anyway were concerned about the loss of buzzing businesses on the geary and clemente and california no program to avoid the loss of Small Businesses on third street okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners testing welling born from d 5 action you say that this proposed plan could possible include 200 and 40 sites lets get more specific lets ask other questions too do the Developers Need new incentives to bid not right now looking at the pipeline. What other plans do add housing maybe being hatched somewhere it is getting difficult for the public to keep up with all the changes to the public realm and zone i concur with the previous comment about slowing down the process this is too important to rezone so much of San Francisco without a low more community at least 6 more months of discussion. Supposing that this were to be Going Forward remember that the nexus study shows Everything Else you build be marketrate every time you build nonthat affordable units we created a need not phil the need for Affordable Housing id like to have it kind of issue addressed in further proposals for up zoning or any other increases in housing which we dearly need, of course, how and what and where . If any plan like this i think should require the bmrs on site and a higher number the fees are way below what it costs to build a unit anywhere for people in the richmond theyre not going to want to be dislocated theyll not want to live at Hunters Point or Treasure Island 23 people are relocated so many questions this needs to be slowed down we need to specific more about unit size 40 percent 23 bedroom and 60 micro units did not work for our neighborhoods or serving the needs of locals or families so lets also hear a report on the successes and problems of bmrs before we go a whole lot more to consider ways to increase housing this one needs to be slowed down and a lot more dissolution e discussion in the neighborhoods thank you so this is to at all good afternoon. Im jean a resident of the Richmond District and a member of the public member of planning associations so for the record and one of the citys Large Organization let me start i completely agree with the need for more Affordable Housing and if possible this Affordable Housing bugs program whether help meet that need but haste makes waste i know ive heard from other people, in fact, ive been here to plead with you to please slow down the process there may have been meeting are quote stakeholders during the one and a half years of the time when the project was development no planning depth or anyone from planning addressing this in the Richmond District im not sure how much has been going on in other location ive heard from people from coalitions they were considering this two or three weeks ago there isnt enough outreach to the stakeholders the residents property owners, businesses in order to justifies having this whole Affordable Housing Bonus Program through the Planning Commission this fast i personally communicated with members of the Planning Department and told dont worry there wont be anything presented whatever the 24th little did i realize not presented it has been presented on the 15 of october and voted open in three weeks in between and three weeks one Public Meeting no city hall to discuss maybe a second one in the sunset a webinar is not a proceeding theyll not be any Public Comment interaction put the brakes on it and allow enough time for comprehensive input and vote no to the in violation of that program for this afternoon thank you very much. Good afternoon. Im Barbara Graham representing the coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods c s n let me be whatever the 36 members are acoustically understanding the crisis in San Francisco and about the lack of Affordable Housing but we are also very alarmed about the lack of Public Outreach as the other speakers said with the current prelims of this essentially up zones the whole city and changes the neighborhood character with the open pickup review how this gives us more housing i dont understand we urge to defer action on the plan until the vitality ah p p guidelines referenced in the policy amendment are available for public review and open public mergers are held in the effected areas a ford why h bp staff made two presentations in more than two weeks this was not because of Public Outreach but because we initiated a request for a staff presentation at the small Land Use Commission on august 24th and we were so concerned about what we heard that we invited staff back on september 15th to a larger delegate meeting on both occasions staff reiterated the proposal was in draft stage and that the complete proposal will not be out until later in the fall that was in two weeks on september 29th we were surprised when mayor and supervisor tang introduced the h b t legislation that was even before the neighborhoods represented by c s f n to inform the residents and before planning first open house on october 26th has been appointed by others it make sense why planning hadnt gotten the comments on Public Comment the vitality Design Guidelines are still being developed and not available for Public Comment the public needs and wants to understand the underlying farreaching effects of implementing ah b c the u. N. Zoning of the whole city and the damaging cumulative impacts open others character of our neighborhood for that reason we ask you to defer and turn down the amending of the plan today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Christie waning after thank you. Hello commissioners. Im chris at the wong the policy director for stark thank you for the opportunity to comment on issues from the general plan amendment for the Bonus Program were pleased the Planning Department is bringing this into guidance with the law and going above and beyond this helps to meet our extremely high need of housing and engages what the local zoning and existing contact in addition to providing much needed affordable this program will tackle a number of sites with outside of singlefamily home neighborhood that are not feasible in the past we think this program is trying to be smart in bringing this into alignment wards to the timing it take a a long time the time to start the day before yesterday, i hope youll stay on schedule and happy about the programs and have a few extensive o specific commissioner sims we will bring when the legislation is presented but to initiate the adoption and the program color to reality thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul wormer as you may know i have some interest in what goes on in planning and plan use ive signed for the legislation relating to land use and planning some reason that never sent out notices about those piece of legislation i guess from the mar and thereafter dont need to be noticed thats a southern im not whether to address any other comments i do think those proposals make sense but there is a lot of open questions so for instance, they make a big deal this didnt effect rh1 and rh2 district if you look at the map that is presented and look at it much certainly of the northern section of the city you see rh1 and rh2 on the same block in many cases into woefr with the rh3 and rh m those rh3 complying today pretty much with the existing 40 x zoning in much of the area what this legislation is written right now says okay. On the same block you happen to be zoned rh2 or rh1 your lot is at the 40 but your neighbor up to 60 that will have an impact on the neighborhood characterization im not sure that is the right solution density bonuss maybe appropriate but love to see anything coming forward a grand last Year Analysis of domiciling guidelines how they play out r m immediately adjacent to an rh1 those in the sunset absolutely it is pretty much homogenous much as part of city are not the other thing not clear how theyre listed the Affordable Housing bonus b will be in terms of enduring activity Construction Activity for affordable in the nesting north of the city just not going to return what a code compliant with the 20 percent into a fee because the 20 percent fee is 20 percent of plannings costs 20 percent of unit not 20 percent of budget or 20 percent of the potential Nicole Schneider income from the sale of unit im not sure how much of a problem in the northern vicinity but not means you dont have to Pay Attention to the impacts thanks. Is there any additional Public Comment. Okay Public Comment is closed. Let me offer a couple of thoughts here. I think many say the right direction and potentially well, maybe not the tall it building in San Francisco this has potentially the most impact in San Francisco in a lot of ways and impacts in areas and neighborhoods in San Francisco im really curious this is not the time to talk about but in the long run ties to transit im not terrible fond the project being put into process and putting anymore people out there without transit is some of the mistakes the city made in the past with not laying down the infrastructure ive curious i dont know if you want to address that okay. I am would like to hear about the 200 and 40 soft sites how they are different from the properties maybe 40 feet allowed to go to 60 im concerned about throwing out miscellaneous questions to in the mid block as you may know every, department of Human Resources at the 3 feet above the next door neighbor this may be code compliant but opens up frustrations to san franciscans their next door neighbors are double height not a fence or a glass partition we deal with with the drs i think bringing up in david baker and getting practical responses was very smarts im not sure the sites were talking about unless those were affordable are david baker sites david baker noouj takes on projects that are large than normal in the footprint i know if this translate into promotions in the sunset or richmond smaller neighborhood sites so i guess my questions are the people that own the property if they make those decision theyre not david baker style projects. Correct me if i am wrong kristen but the way the economics work they wont be typically not 10 or 12 unit but large buildings and buildings that are thirty or 40 units because of the economics thats why we have the Economic Analysis and david with the architecture correct me if i am wrong. Youre correct most of the projects we anticipate ben in about this range we can cock it would be helpful to come back to the commission with a full discussion how david bakers working will help the project what weve duplicate with the team developed residential guidelines what would you give our staff in this their designing this building those will add to the residential design and what kinds of considerations around the texture and kind of i think one of the things that resonated with our residential design and david is thinking will the streetscape what the commerce experience im clearly not a designer the pedestrian experience kind of informed how you feel those buildings im probably not the right staff but like to come back with david bakers team and explain that. What would be the smallest building applicable. Weve worked with open scope on the theyve looking at the 25 wide lot and 50 foot wide lot with the 25 wide lot it is the life safety materials going up higher didnt make sense youll stay at the lower heights weve found projects in the lower 20 ranges we have exact numbers of what size we anticipate the projects be. Okay. Is there any preference to former lots versus mid lots and certainly in our area plans we have Higher Heights permitted on the corner parcels that is one of the ideas out of the invested neighborhood we looked at some of the corridor and also the blueprint and honestly working in a city thats pretty developed that really about where the opportunity sites are and making the Affordable Housing successful in the places where their opportunity site. We have maps of the 200 and 40. Yeah. We can provide that on a district level on each district and. So again, i think this is the right direction and bold and fast as well i understand the need and goal the reason it needs to be considered fast whether or not this get built out in 2, 3, 4 economic kindly i want the staff to know think about viable in the next economy because it is certainly hundred dollars will not be built in a short time this is in between. Commissioner johnson. Thank you certainly i concur with your last question commissioner president fong it had not in one kindly how many units in some of the soft believes in 20 years thats a whole generations i personally definitely love the direction of this and staff in terms of the Decision Making the mayors working group closed out the finding at the end of the last year and beginning beginning of this yearish if i remember well have two hearings of the paged legislation that will be coming to us this is the first thing other than the fact the notices didnt go out yovp i dont feel a lack of participation or a lack of ability to operate looking for a better part of a year im way past that i im supportive i he the same question how do i say that im wondering how do we reduce the degree of freedom so people see the program the way im looking at it clear benefits for San Francisco if developers from many of the soft sites were to select the local program because i think the state program it really is geared much more towards first of all, the lower be frookt but geared towards local outlet requirements so i think this works from the state Program Works fantastic in an area where there are no height restrictions so you know the whole issue of having the height and density requirement it is almost mute so in San Francisco we do in the local program weve laid out works better inform the height and bulk restricts my question is i dont think that developers see that that way their looking at the performa a lot of the opportunity sites didnt pencil out this definitely maybe other plaza better choice my question is how do we greatly incentivizes without the City Attorney yelling at me saying we cant ask anyone someone to courthouses one option. She proposed that comment to me a couple of the that is actually something our team worked an incentive vision zero the local program it purports for the prop k goals and all the things so our team has been working hard on thinking this flue one thing weve done is kind of he limit the incentives and on the state program to exactly what the state requires we grant only height when necessary and the only incentives that are required per our analysis wherewith the local program were saying yes, of course, you get the height you have 80 a few more options the other places in the legislation that the mayor introduced thinking about the review process and how we create more clarity a styled approach to it so in the eastern neighborhoods was development because of a large project authorizations youve seen a few projects under this weve created that kind of process for any project that has affordability and higher whats great they kind of have all the considerations under one case so the modification the density bonus and the affordability comes down to you in one package and a little bit more clear and the Design Guidelines are consider at considerations are more focused in terms of what the Commission Weighs in on at the final hearing weve received comments about that process and how the way weve drafted it includes all the projects thirty percent affordable and more and the l ta that has a size threshold this is something were looking at maybe projects noted that big the smaller projects and commissioner president fong was talking about might actually you know have a more staff dense i have process were looking at that and the other thing people seconddegree murder we havent introduced is an idea of provided processing if you do the thirty percent Affordable Housing and this i think weve had a lot of conversations if you give everybody priority wait the priority that is a a question for us internal keeping it filled and if this creates a large volume of projects this delet us that. If i can weigh in were trying to figure out i mean the city program up to thirty percent affordable so the question is what could we do beyond and ii think were not comfortable saying add 5 stories or something but so we are looking at the approval process to be honest one of the things that comes up a lot in conversation a way to allow a project thirty percent affordable or more more to say it is reviewed at the administrative level thats one of the things thats come up and one of the things to go look at it because a process that take have to 8 months does, in fact, save a ton of money money and an incentive to the community if were trying to think of a way to get affordable units out there we may want to consider that. I appreciate that response 4 this is a way better response we had 6 months ago. Done good work. I dont know if in the legislation or the planning code change or how well change our process ill be post ever that from a program more things on the consent calendar up to the staff taking some of the projects and doing that more at a staff level im supportive of that. Just a couple quick comments we have a few more we can see if we go forward with this and seeing that again and commissioner president fong and other comments yeah definitely general plan amendment are clear in terms of the prioritizing the building district rh3 and r m and above but certainly in a lot of the parts of the city have a mixture i see it adding a lever we can use to get good traffics for more Affordable Housing; right . So me not every single right weve just discussed and in the section every developer will not take up an opportunity but if this is a lever i see this commission in the future iterations with that in the future looking at those trade offs in terms of design and maybe characterization how have they consider that for more Affordable Housing we did that last week last week with other promotions for Additional Units were happy with the additional height or maybe some more captains active variance or things like that i dont see that changing we have people protest at the Planning Commission i appreciate that. Thank you very much for your presentation. Commissioner wu. Thanks so i think that will be helpful as commissioner president fong asked to see both the design tip metrological at the least for it it be next week seems two soon that takes us to november 5th i dont know if there is enough will to hear all the models and the item on the same day more of an foj informational i think we need the information to understand a little bit better so if this only for a new construction believing in you had an existing 4 Story Building add two stories to it and somehow get to this percentage within the building. We see that the addition might with work were curious that means a lot of more study but meet the fundamental goals for the whole building financing only for new construction. Thats why i think it is good to look at the communication when you add 2 stories no longer any density controls; right . So if a 4 Story Building had 4 or 5 units and added in the two stories all the smaller units that then got you know get the numbers you need to get it. This is only for new construction thats how we intend that that make sense. Along the same lines i wonder if in this your clarifying a financial incentive to demolition the building lets have a 4 Story Building is there an incentive to demolition it and replace that is very tricky or dangers. Thats a great question and honestly case by case were lucky that last fall the state adopted ab 2222 is that the right number yeah, so this is a clause any existing residential uses that are affordable reasonable person rentcontrolled thats the exact terminology and to choose the Density Program you have to replace those units as part of your project the financial incentive to demolition and those units is lost by the requirement to replace them and is the replacement a physical or as rentcontrolled. With the affordability correct. Is that legally possible. The state just passed this law. You will have to replace and on top of meet the 33 percent. Deputy City Attorney susan clevelandknowles the state law seems to relying ply those could be part of whatever it is required up to 3, 4, 5 percent. That seems problematic; right . Because your units are the affordable units. It depends on so again why question should look at. Couple of cases. Yeah. A couple scenarios that would happy correct. We had this easily what is a one story the number of feet . Is that a different measure are you adding 20 feats or. The planning code offers a 10 or 20 foot ethnic increase and then we try to limit the residential stories to within those ten foot increments we dont regulate those and not changing. So the equivalent bonus would within a give in the number of feet. Correct and currently as draft it requires each residential floor to have height toe ceiling but to make sure were not getting the problem of the floors squished in thats the challenge we have how every many hours ago. If there a financial in the Financial Model if there is a possible incentive to demolition the building or Something Like that there needed to be a first right to return the strongest this nation has ever seep to make sure that none losses their housing because there is construction and theyre being moved out and lastly ill say the general plan language is absent soft it basically says and ill block to the City Attorney we may give more in height or Something Like that it seems like a little bit openended the reprehensive to the programs as needed are Something Else i feel is it might open some other doors. Maybe we need to look at that that is a point the reason is say may because we dont want to give the height to achieve in terms of a number of Zoning Districts. The city may do you want Affordable Housing policy it seems like a little bit large. Again deputy City Attorney susan clevelandknowles the reason that the language is written that way it is a conforming change to the general plan that so forth from the specific areas so the actual part of policy already in the Housing Element the implementation measure is the one that that says the city should you know work on adopting density policy programs and the amendments before i mostly today are to conform and make the general plan consistent overall the language is permissive not in all cases density need to be incased and generally try to keep the language in the general plan general so that it give us flexibility and implementation with other general plan policies. Okay. So id like to hear from other commissioners about it there are more desire for phenomenal and scheduling. I just want to support commissioner wus issues pointing out it would be an incentive for this commission for a while to take a strong stance an demolition only about to fall down situation i mentally applied this to the new famous case an clemente when we tried to look at a occasion that probably is a perfect site it is 50 feet wide you could go up to 60 or 80 feet the neighbors were upset and appealed and board of appeals or the board of supervisors but this is a good Case Scenario of the type project potentially there were two or three rentcontrolled units easily and put it in marketrate because of its size i think that is a good scenario. Commissioner richards. I fully support of concept but think a lot of the the devil is in the details the stricken we do something and face the policy implementation afterward i think the questions by fellow commissioner wu and commissioner president fong raised questions in my mind are were going to put something in place for creating issues later on and not get it right the first time weve met and i support the xheptd concept any other changes the zoning for the pressed guideline. Weve done a lot of research on the history in the city and working on a map that shows the timing of everything ill certainly look at that. Im worried about and i have questions i wrote down to demolition weve not established a policy amongst ourselves and creating a policy to incentivize that i asked for a schematic in the middle of a block i share the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood and the bmr have to be onsite. Thats correct. Okay. Do we allow lot combinations drive by two lots mid block and create a building. Thats a bit of a worry. So the rules keeping consistent within the existing controls. Thats a bit of a worry for me i guess you know mr. Distell wrote a long letter i think some of it especially around the design and i read the letter he was up here id like for you to look at that and make sure that there isnt anything were missing and want to say again, were in a crisis the plane is running out of gas rather than fix the plane what would three or four weeks make us feel more comfortable in terms of the addressing some of the questions raised by the public ive been in their shoes back in 2005, 6 and 7 market octavia pulling a face one and rushing this through germany see a problem people are raising the issues just to obstruct there but there is design issues we should smoke out first before we move on this. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. He would agree i think this has a lot of potential my fear we cant have one onesizefitsall and im concerned that we would be creating these blanket approvals of additional floors if you meet certain categories without a process i heard that will the hundred percent affordable thats a big problem ive spoken about the neighborhood in San Francisco where i live and where it applies to the other streets and norway we go and car very well and others that are named the idea is you have single story and other institutions that have surface level parking lots that are better three or four floors retail on the bottom and housing as well but the problem your proposing if that zoning is 40 exhibition theyll do it but potential 6 or 7 floor buildings and if theres no public process for this to come before us and decide if this is a proper project i think that is not the way to do that i mean it is desirable to have more Affordable Housing particularly middleincome elements but i think the abbreviating the process is a big problem ill be okay with leaving this as a possibility it could be used in areas but i think they still have to go through a process for example, to have the 4 story hundred percent affordable or 3 additional stories is something im going to have controvertible voting for in a 10 year youll have a lot of option and if you are going to give a good bonus better for the Opening Statements you satisfy the educate with the middleincome buyers and renters most of whom have families that live in many in the western neighborhoods and hard for the children and others to afford housing thats the best part of the whole program having a little bit more addressing the concerns that were mentioned today, im probably going to vote for an e annihilation but it has a protection for the public against individual projects how about if you blanket in a program it is really ugly not only the height is bad but a real eye sore not the possibility for a public hearing to be disapproved and the transit issues by the other commissioners you cant expect people will will spend a whole day riding the bus adopt geary to get where theyre going we have to look at the transit i applaud the idea it is a good one only had to be properly structured with the projects being throne up without any progress. I want to make is clear the conversation that and i and the director supervisor tang introduced the legislation all of the projects will be coming to the commission that has thirty percent affordability or more. So even hundred percent. Correct. Correct. Thats helpful and less than thirty percent theyll come to us. Those projects will be consistent with their counter process so if they see you theyll trigger a cu whatever. I understand. Theres 4 hundred reaps they might so, yeah. I just. Commissioner richards did you get our questions about the merging and assembly blocks. Im yosemite it is allowed. It would be allowed as of today. Remember the rest of the planning code still applies not throwing out the planning code for the provisions so so i could buy a gas station and mortgagey. If you wanted to. Commissioner johnson. 0 so ill end my comments with a motion to initiate i dont think that the general plan amendment that we were initiating dont speak to any of the questions or issues were asking up here i want to make that clear to people that are listening to us they sort of make sure that the policy objective ive not heard aircraft about are represented in the general plan before you we look at any legislation so i think you know, i have a couple of things i want to say and end with a motion to initiate that didnt preclude us from giving us ourselves a couple of weeks november 5th we can look at the amendments and not take action. Thats correct. So just a couple of things that that will be helpful i think that commissioner antoninis point at the came in the process that that is how 0 incentivizes the program so we want to see it and really you know cant do too much how much it shakes auto particularly for smaller scale projects but save time and money owning on process not necessarily coming in the commission but to the community where priority processing for things take less staff times and come to the commission and any number of things that are part of legislation and others not they could be discussions making later in terms of the department process how we look at things i want to make that clear about in terms of process in terms of the hundred percent avenue, i kind of had a similar thought to commissioner antonini but i remembered that its been a year and a half the discussion in the Mayors Office of housing one of the things if you implement something that is a Density Bonus Program or anything to incentivize with the may i have a minute development it continues to put the pressure on the ability of Affordable Housing are developers to build a site and puts them at more disadvantageous they have to get the funding and support from whatever having an additional bonus allows to those to be on parity with the density bonus one things in terms of the size unfortunately, i think it is unlikely to see hundred percent Affordable Housing projects taking the once you go from two or three stories to 5 or 6 you significantly increase the costs unless youre talking about a site that is pretty big not get smaller scale hundred percent Affordable Housing likely to go to wood construction or whatever it is called. Commissioner, i think that the, do a wood frame 5 over one. 5 stories. Four or five. Thats basically the height of what a fire truck would be. So tlits theres a lot of 40 in the district we do think this is an incentive go from 4 stories to 6 using the same and more specifically kate howard and others will join aussie explain how this benefits in the portfolio of Affordable Housing there are some specific sites were looking at how those 3 stories will help and that kind of how we invented it in the Affordable Housing Development Community a couple of different opinions how helpful that will be and people are thinking about theyre specific projects but as the director was pointing out if you stay within that 85 foot height limit with really the construction type of is something we see happening with the hundred percent affordable were aerobic it helps in many cases but hundred percent Affordable Housing that dont take advantage of the they want to stay at 60 it depends on the financing. I appreciate director ram correcting me my memory was fail me i thought that was more like three or four stories and after that, the door pricing transpires or double fantastic. Ill be curious to have dbi look at this and im sure in that somewhere or commissioner wus had an additional 2 stories with the existing and stacking another two stories on top of that wood and flat will bring complications. In terms of the additions in terms of vertical additions we started to realize it as a whole separate project on a long wish list i suppose as a Planning Department as we dissect that this is for a design construction. So just in terms of i think the commissioner richards sort of brought this up and commissioner president fong but this does not precluded us how to question the impact for example, lot mergers is one of the discussions that is launching on our list of things to do and look at this legislation harms that discussion it shifts that well, now we have this other incentive or other topography that potentially could be in the neighborhood how does that shift the impact of allowing lot mergers this is a lot of points dont need to be wrapped up in a Different Program but keeping with the general plan and okay. Commissioner richards. I think for myself personally after hearing everything today ill support one more informational to talk about the policy design issues the details on the break out for the district two cd and how to achieve that one of the things it will increase the number of drs so i would support an it possible on this before i initiate. I dont know your calendar ill suggest you could initiate and hold one on the fist and make room on the following for adoption the 12 jonas. Commissioners thats fine im just all of the hearings in november have already been closed their that full we closed december 3rd clearly entirely up to you if you want to stay late. Also want to add this is board initiated mayor initialed we have a 90 day window. I think it would stop in the middle of december this was introduced on the 29 of december so the 90 days thats the commissions response. Correct. If i could i do not have much more appetite for a 12hour hearing so i think this is a good idea to have the informational on november 5th that was the date proposed unfortunately not another open calendar until december 10th as long as it falls within the 90 days. Okay. Well, we could scheduled the fifth as adoption and continue it if 23 is amenable or jonas a time next week for informational my recommendation it will be request to initiate today by you have november 5th as a informational and then we need to figure out a date for an action hearing he realizes the calendars are full but in recent experience a lot of projects have been falling off calendar too im not trying to rush anything by way of im fine to ask staff to go out and have more meetings in the neighborhood thats fine two i feel am urgency to move forward i realize this was in september but discussed well over a year with the Mayors Task Force it is entirely a new concept try to do it in november i recognize that those hearings are full but a lot of projects do come up. Will you guaranteeing us laughter . Try to move some ultimately it is your call. My original thinking along the lines of commissioner richards so ill pass on to the next person. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. Ill agree we can initiate informational on the fifth and see if we are happy with the information we have on the fifth and from the calendar permits on the 5 or some other time in november or december at the worst but within the 90 day period we have jurisdiction. Thats the way. Commissioner johnson im going to make a motion to initial e initiate and in terms of i think we have take that motion first and then talk about the dates. However, you want to go commissioners i mean ive heard our initial motion to initiate ive not heard a second. Ill second the motion to initiate. Okay. You want informational on the fifth. Yeah. That was my question i would be okay with well do an informational on the fifth and i think we should just add to our ridiculously long third, that give us a couple of more hearings to push it out further i dont want to leave that piece open well interest have the same conversations in november how the hearings are full and well be here until forever. I would be in agreement and as we had put it on the calendar and for whatever reason we need more information we continue it but put it on the calendar. It is none the calendar and hopefully, well ended up having a super long hearing maybe another project will fall off until next year. Before you call that i do want to thank staff and i want to thank the director and the Mayors Office that is a bold strong attempt trying to take care of the Affordable Housing and middleincome housing problems in San Francisco it is a bold swift move but i think the entire commission here and commissioners not here have the same opinions it is the right direction. All right. Commissioners there is a motion and a second general plan amendments for sorry for Affordable Housing Bonus Program commissioner antonini. Commissioner johnson. Commissioner richards commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero commissioners item 10 for 2015 this is a childcare increasing plan code amendment. Good afternoon commissioner president fong and fellow Planning Commissioners im staff Planning Department staff im here to remedy the approval for the childcare increase in the application ordinance before i begin i want to recognize supervisor yee hell provide some comments. Thank you schong and the other commissioners thanks for allowing me to speak on this item so i just wanted ill keep this as short as possible youve been here a few hours one of the goals in San Francisco in this position would be on the school board to try to keep the families and children in San Francisco whether Family Housing in this case about childcare what is happening you have this discussion amongst my staff and colleagues developers and childcare for the last few months it seems like only the last few months for some people but me thats a discussion since 1945 i 85 when the childcare response was actually created i was part of that discussion i wanted to do some of the things im incorporating into the new legislation today thirty years ago but some of the ideas were a little bit premature for the time and a couple of things that really kausz some urgency for me one thing is that we already know about the population growth well see probably another couple of thousands of people in San Francisco living here in the next few decades that coupled with the fact that today currently with very 35 hundred children on the eligibility list waiting for childcare in San Francisco we dont have enough licensed childcare space or capacity for 32 percent of the children in San Francisco thats current coupled with the growth i think we need to something has to be done what it means also where are were going to get the resources we have to be creative at this point the list will accomplish a few things one of them to expand what we call the childcare impact fees that was created over 25 years ago to not only citywide commercially but a new piece the residential piece and the also the development piece we have exist were asking for increase in fees according to the nexus study that was done last year this is embedded weve had a hearing on that and we talk about the fees and basically no objection to it the additional fees would result in upward to 5 billion for the childcare Facilities Fund over the next 7 or 10 years it is not a lot of money but you know relative to what we give now the system weve doubted the amount were getting ill say we need to tenfold that to catch. Just for our information to create a small just small Childcare Center in San Francisco it costs between 40,500,000 and my experience it has been at a personal level ive created the Childcare Centers that is about the amount weve seen if you look at what the developers put into the fees it is a lot less than what it costs to create it so the real renovation one of the ways to establishment the childcare space through licensed home based Family Childcare this has been proven and has is an ordinance 0 the legislation will create an option that is the newer part were going to be adding to the childcare fees to find a way to mitigate and this would money matt haney that the developers well ask them to dedicate the affordable units to Family Childcare each one of the units could serve as many as 6 were talking about small childcare family licenses on top of that we didnt want to have overflow of 20 two many childcare facilities in one building we lee wasnt like to limit to 3 units this way you dont cause those basic businesses to fail and this allows them to receive a decrease in the amount by allowing this aspect it reduces the amount of money that is developers will have to pay into the chiropractor Facilities Fund we strongly believe that will lead to the creation of dozens of units on the long hall noted immediately but have the potential of assisting hundreds of families while allowing usage again, i want to emphasize that the vast majority of children in Family Childcare have in the age bracket of 2 to 3 and when you look at the Childcare Centers we dont have any focused on the amble bracket so, i say this because we we see over the 25 years in collecting this fee there hadnt been really one of 0 two facilities that has been built by the vendors the rest going both into the fee itself by doing this and lou for this aspect it allows especially in the residential that you have some services right where the people are lifethreatening not where they have to bring a 2yearold miles away so i said want to address the memo im submitting to the Planning Commission outlining 3 amendments ive been working on the first one is correcting the impact fee assess the project moves from pdr use to residential use the fee should be one dollars and 0. 04 per gross square feet and the reason for that, of course, is that theres really a usage the conversion from zero to residential is much greater than from pdr to residential so and the second item redefining the designation of childcare units what we like to do is include the language that says that a unit that we can use for this purpose of a Family Childcare has to have at least one thousand square feet we didnt want to leave that it to the discretion of the developers not end up saying oh, this is affordable 5 hundred square feet and maybe not much to do with 5 thousand square feet but a minimum of a thousand square feet and that will be appropriate for taking care of 6 children and the third item would be insuring if he any person attending for any reason unable to continue to operate the Family Childcare selfcenter in the subject to eviction were exploring the possibility of pro rating the impact fee over the 10 year requirement to guarantee fairness for this city and the developer that applies for 0 this program those are 3 and finally address a challenge that legislators face when this kind of legislation is first introduced im looking at what aspects of the program should beleaguer lad and what spanks should be left to the implemented agencies ive been around other people other policy Decision Makers where theyre on the school board and sometimes a balance 24 7 policy and what can be done any of usly and in this case, i could have sat down and this is a policy and this is the way you should do it and every daily guess what it didnt work i have to come back to the board and ask for amendments to renew the policies and i dont want that to happen what im trying to say give you overarching ideas i expect the appreciation of the Mayors Office Mayors Office of housing and Community Development and find a common solution for the implementation and by way of by time would be in a unit that is going to be licenses were talking about a year away so im pretty sure we can figure out administrations active to see 24 policy im introducing i want to let you know the operation of Family Childcare if passed will be the will to do this and im appreciate our support for this item i think that is due time as a city start looking at the childcare issues and moving in the right direction and the ability to create more facilities thank you very much. Thank you, supervisor. Thank you supervisor yee. I also wanted to let the commission know that always the staff of Mayors Office of housing and Community Development Mary Benjamin is here to answer questions and dobson from the early care and education is also here currently, the city charges childcare fees for this Residential Development in planned areas the childcare fees must be spent within the area plan borders and spent throughout the city as all impact fees must be capital costs associated with the childcare needs this proposal creates a new residential childcare impact fee is applies citywide the legislation will change the childcare requirement for the office and Hotel Development to add an additional of 25 or more space new commercial and remain fees will be charged based on the number of units priority and the fees remain the same the difference of the fees both the newly Childcare Fund exception to the new fee will apply to the Residential Projects governmentowned properties and that he document prior to the date alleged fees for the nonresidential to residential space as well as pdr space Residential Projects also choose to provide a small daycare in lieu of the fee a designated childcare will be an onsite bmr unit and a two bedroom for a tenant that agrees to operate a snams for 10 years 3 recommendations that are reflected in the resolution the Department Proposed represents recommendation number one remove it from the Inclusionary Program and create a separate program the city applauded the efforts especially small dafr homes it present several concerns based on input from the Mayors Office of housing the department has concerns of tying the programs to the inclusionary childcare and no facility and building that establish a program independent is more appropriate the creation of the childcare unit for the credit for the childcare fee and counts towards the citys a pardon will be doubling and receive the credit for Affordable Housing and here on behalf of the appellant it will include an inclusionary unit the city is in the process of it make sense for that the Childcare Provider not part of discussion until now and the city is not clear how this effects the Inclusionary Program this is tied to individual making 50 percent of ami surgeon 60,000 for a family of four and able to start a Childcare Center should be considered and the family daycare is not able to run 10 years arrest 9 months the city could be put in a situation of other tenant the department asked this be inclusionary and not tied to an individuals income this provides the fee reduction for the project sponsor without burdening the occupant in order to do this we ask important a creation of. Unit after one year a childcare unit not there we ask for the fee waiver and if it is infeasible to eliminate the fee altogether recommendation go two clarify the childcare fees currently it is unclear from the fees unlevied will be unchanged in the legislation to have the fees remain the same and adopted button childcare general fund. Recommendations number 3 the office of early childcare and education should be the agency currently the agency to insure that the designated childcare is running a home for 10 years given that the Planning Department didnt regulate childcare or determine what constitutes a legal childcare in the home it should remain in the office of childcare education and the childcare facilities therefore we ask the Planning Commission to remedy the approval of the ordinance recommendations again staff is available for questions. Thank you. Open up for Public Comment if there is any. Ms. Johnson it is poor i know response and also working on trying to get also with the contracts that shes wanting to develop and sorry that what you call the the postpone put in any system that developed is from its not going to be you know on that much im looking forward into building houses and trying to establish my schooling that ive been waiting for my diploma, you know, escorted into the Childcare Services and contract which mostly should be written on a computer so they can understand exactly what aim saying ive heard theyre not understanding what im saying so the better he get the computer and the classes ive went into classes for you know clinic substances they have lines about the people that died and im going to go to those classes to know about you know new that cause more money to be established for the state and to more on you know better relations to end im looking at prouvens myself in a better manner in precede in business and also looking at what weve lost with my aunts and acting classes and ive already applied for i think this is the consumer not going to somebody that going to steal money anyway knew it it anyway, i didnt respond in my thank you. Hello commissioners. Im rosie a former Family Childcare provide provider in San Francisco it is not often Development Promotions but i think this is very much what happens to the care and whether the parents can go to work and very much part of the infrastructure of the city and we all know that it is problematic for childcare a lot of home based childcare are being evicted and a cumulative for me effect that means that young parents actually cite the policy number one concern concern for the wellbeing the kids and go to work and hold on to their jobs so what this legislation proposed addresses that problem and give a lot of families in the city to have the hope to develop chiropractor in the city thats it and thank you very much for considering it. Okay is there any additional Public Comment. All right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed commissioner antonini. Yeah. I think that is a good concept maybe i can ask staff the nexus was 90 percent of nexus on the high ends but if you felt that is of the the appropriate increase. Yes. We working closely with the Planning Department staff and i know at land use and the fee is appropriate and within the range ill tell you the commission not a be Feasibility Study but a nexus study study not done. In lieu of the impact fees we want to make sure it looks like it will be a proper amount to charge. There is some question of feasibility for large projects projects over hundred units inner i believe this was outlined in the table you have the Feasibility Study for the fee we dont have one it is hard to determine the feasibility but based on the feasibility and talk about to the staff that worked on the usf. Im in support i agree with staffs recommendations i mean splitting out the designated childcare unit that needs more work i understand the Mayors Office is working on the detailed well splilt split that out and approve the first part and continue that iuoe or how will that be handled administratively. Ill make a recommendation to approve the fee portion but ask that fee the other portion taken out and considered at a separate time. Right a recommendation to the board that make sense and also the part that the fee should remain stable in plans weve established those fees thats difficult to pass legislation that is not in concert with the fees and finally, the office of early childcare and enforcement is the right place for it to be ill make a motion to strike to the following approve the increase in the in lieu fee as outlined in the legislation but split out the designated childcare unit part of legislation for consideration under the future time with the also the recommendations of fees to stay stable in area plans and that the office of early childcare enforcement the agency to monitor this. Sure i wanted to clarify the elements for the office of early care and education for the part politics to the part of addition education. It should be stripped from my motion will be considered later with the only two parts are industrial strip it out and approve the fees and keep the fees stable in the area. Just to be clear youre making a motion to adapt a recommendation for two and three. And also to strike out sorry. So i think the elements is just to clarify the fees levied in the areas will stay in the planned areas in the planned areas the fee will be charged the citywide fee will be charged by the portions goes and left over to the statewide bucket. Thats like taking the previous. Now im clear that is making sure that what is specified in the planned area stays in the planned area and still can charge but citywide. Thats the intent of the supervisor just we said more clarification and that clarifies it that sound good. Do i hear a second. Any more deduction. Commissioner johnson. I want to second but im a little bit confused on the first recommendations from the Planning Department about them using the ccu and creating a separate program would that operate program have to come back to the Planning Commission what commissioner antonini meant in his motion was not the recommendation in the report. I actually defer to the City Attorney would that have to come back im not sure. It depends on deputy City Attorney susan clevelandknowles through through the chair it really depends on how the new the rice legislation will come back about you have considered the designated childcare unit and considered the proposal by staff to straight it from the Inclusionary Program its been before you for example, from the Land Use Commission split the file at ludicrously both could move forward without necessarily coming back to the mraks if no further new concepts were added if, on the other hand, the supervisor introduced a new piece of legislation to tale with the designate childcare unite that legislation will come back to you. Thank you. Yeah, so i kind of had that in my mind i love this program i love that supervisor yee has focused on Family Housing i think that we should be going favorite than this how 0 create the physical environment not just residential unit but having unit on ground floor spaces and looking at the planning code and seeing a way to create the involvement to have in the area have places to do that and, however, im the designated childcare unit i think that is needed more work i dont know that i support it being part of the Inclusionary Program one that it takes away part of thought units generally speaking and two missile multiple discussions about the lottery system and talking about the neighborhood preferences and another preferences i feel there is alexander on to it and part of discussion so im looking at staff and asking that question i want to see this happen but if it means that were basically push out a potential change to the Inclusionary Program without further discussion none if ill support is a creative way to move forward but ways we can normal it into inclusionary Housing Programs. Other ways to create this as a way of childcare. So staff will be happy to work with supervisor yee on a separate ordinance that dealt with the designated childcare unit we need more time to understand how that Program Works well be happy to do that as a separate piece of legislation. Supervisor yee any comment or you dont have to comment. No, my preference will be to leave the legislation and be supportive of it ii had this discussion with the mayor months ago the legislation was put out in july and some of the issues we are talking about the can be resolved at t administrative level weather whether or not were taking away units were saying that those that go into one designated or two they have to be low income and it is just the other kwfks if youre saying youll do a Family Childcare youll. And were referring you know one of the affordable units to allow for that up to 3 depending on how big the building is we could also not regardless but if you were to separate it out i would try to pursue it and continue to pursue at the boards level to include this in the legislation he have before you. Thank you. I then i got i mean i dont want to do this i have a august for a continuance to ask for changes from the Inclusionary Program arguments how to make it go easier and more acceptable and understandable for everyone i know were note taking away units but creating a presence that is specific use not just someone of low income but someone that will run this type of business in this unit and addressing were saying one of the amendments that supervisor yee made supposing was if it family in that unit was unable to run that business they cant be evicted it will defeat the use of that unit and then two years ago or three years ago later canned run the business i think this need more thought i completely respect supervisor yees comments wanting to move forward his legislation i dont know if i can support it leaving the commission how uncleaver that works. Commissioners, i think that was the intent of commissioner antoninis recommendation your recommend recommending 9 board pull that out as separates legislation remember our making a recommendation to the boards whether you continue it to another date or not theyll move forward as they see fit continuing the whole package didnt wouldnt necessarily change that. Absolutely weve been much more adamant in the history of providing clarity to the recommendations i think that saying we dont sort it in the current form create a separate program that could have any different types of forms that provide a lot of direction or clarity or help to the supervisors who will be considering supervisor yees legislation so i dont know. I guess i prefer to have a little bit more thought in the Planning Commission in terms of what could be modifications or alternatives to describe the program so supervisors will have more material to chew on versus not having that. Again, i love the legislation he love where it is going im not supportive of it personally but happy. So i think staffs recommendation is that we last week the program for the units being designated as a childcare unit we dont want it to be tied to an inclusionary unit the program is fine not inclusionary unit so thats where were coming from the other spanks in the program wear fine with. Right of taking it out of the Inclusion Program opened up other questions the philosophy interrupt f many confronting have the lowerincome families have an opportunity as a type of enterprise would appeal to that segment so as a below grade apartment enties families to take that option we need to think okay. If . The philosophy the people were trying to run that enterprise that unit but yet we dont think this should fit into the Inclusionary Program whats the alternative sprefrz if we dont provide thinking around that theyll send is it to the board of supervisors level and have to come up with it. Thats what im thinking. Commissioner wu. Eject so im a little bit confused right now so off the staff recommendation it sounds like there is a consensus on staffs 1, 2, 3 but with staffs first recommendation to remove the d cc you from the Inclusionary Program it doesnt sound that is what the supervisor intends to do this commission can provide that recommendation but ultimately it is recommendation and correct laughter . Ill prefer to move it out today. Ill prefer not to continue. Commissioner richards. A couple of questions i see the benefit of kind of hitting two birds within one stone the questions i look at the percentage of ami for 55 is 36 k for one person plus center have we done an aside test if they make that by themselves line item to that amount of income if an additional child came offer. Staff has not done that analysis. It an important lens to look through. Thanks for that question we actually thought about that number one not we want lowerincome or to do this but the reality when you had a Small Business youll not make a lot of money but over linebackers but the majority of people as you startup a childcare generally so there are few people theyre going to make hundred and 50,000 so thats the reality of what it is and i think when we put this Development Together look at the reality how they benefit and as mentioned earlier the other they know and thats happening there is a lot of new people getting evicted from in their homes and the percentage of people in childcare theyre getting evicted we know people are ran those things so what were willing to do so we understand that you can qualify when you step into the door before i run a Family Childcare but find a childcare you can be over the limit and much over the limit but over the limited and one of the things we stipulated stipulated from the legislation when shes kicked out of running a Small Business just to be clear one could operate a license family chiropractor in any apartment anywhere and the law protects that in this case weigh saying get an incentive for people to come in and operate and provided a service and the trade off is yes, so the developer saves fees were asking that we not convert the rental unit into a property for sale so basically, were allowing them the business to be there for 10 years thats the trade off. The question if i may if im a developer and said to you ill create a bmr units for an ellis act or whatever the preference and create a united for childcare an bmr who would you take two units rather than one and the bmr plus a new bmr for childcare because im loud that. You can do it why not. Id like to move this forward and have two units created if this is available and voluntarily want to do it under the program. Ill look at that. I support the recommended amendments thats what i want to see. Commissioner antonini. Just a clarification if my motion goes forward then we would probably if there are changes i assume changes because of the legislation would have to be nuanceed it will come back to look at the nuance version. Only from the supervisor sdp does an additional legislation otherwise no. Thats the first thing i said to ask the woman from the Mayors Office if youre a happy with the motion or prefer it. Maria beige im very happy with the motion you put forward while im were we think this is great we think that will be great to support our low income families that cant locate affordable childcare and doing the childcare in the building it is a federal bureau of investigation thing but so many Unanswered Questions we need to work out a lot of things before we e feel confront spellings an inclusionary unit we also are uncomfortable with the idea of taking away a unit from the so we would be thrilled to have a chance to put mind thoughts and figure out how we can make is work. Thank you very much i agree theyre good ideas but the two pieces of legislation have distinct and you know even though they deal with childcare theyre two distinction subjects and the increase is pretty much selfexplanatory so no real option but the other needs a lot of nuances it sounds like you could 20 take too units out of the stock for the Childcare Center and home for the person running it that sounds like it was being proposed. That would be detrimental to our stock of. And thats not what i was proposing. That might not confusing in the legislation so im still in supportive of what i proposed i think we had a second. Ill second it. Okay. Commissioner johnson. So he seconded the motion again, im super supportive im hoping to ask the staff if it does anything or make sense to add the recommendation to actually lift that recommendation that make sense. That would when you make a recommendation we bring it to the Land Use Commission and state an record kwhat recommendation so the 3 peripheries on this committee will mare that and get the information. Ongoing. Ill accept that as part of motion that goes without saying in the motion and. I just 80 want to make sure that is not what that says okay. Were adjust the Planning Department recommendation. Clarify how you youre asking for the inclusionary unit childcare to be split from the file . Well, not necessarily in my motion im sorry. Thats okay. Yeah. Thats probably whatever the Mayors Office feels what are the two working with the supervisor and works this into an acceptable form but you know i mean where they split that out that would be advisable splitting the two parts of legislation as opposed to just to consider them separately. Yeah. Separately but your recommendation is a good one of the one part as opposed to the second part. I believe were the recommendation is to rove that piece from this legislation and consider it separately. Yes. Thats the motion and then i and that was my finding with commissioner johnson is take the opportunity is certainly a good input for future work on that part of motion. A its taking staffs recommendation to future considerably a separate recommendation and. Just want to reiterate i love that sxooe is puff this this is a fantastic program and sincerely hes 0 spiced me to be more of a voice to create American People environment for housing and how you lay out the space for larger families and create the i fiscal environment ill be talking about that. On the other hand. On the motion tool do you want a recommendation for approval with staffs recommendation for modification clarifying that item one would be split into a new piece of legislation commissioner antonini. Commissioner johnson and commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong. So moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 57 to zero commissioners, that places you under your on item 11 at 2443 plus fillmore an jackson a conditional use authorization. Good evening, commissioners wayne Planning Department staff the item before you a request for a conditional use authorization to allow a change of an party and formula retail use at 2453 and 45 of him street the subject site located within the upper fillmore commercial district the project sponsor Blue Bottle Coffee to merge two businesses and a vacant storefront on of him most recently operated by a formula retail use restaurant d. B. A. As coffee that closed in 2014 Blue Bottle Coffee a rooster with 22 locations wield and identified as formula retail use the thinking outside the box seeming seeks to resume the formula retail use restaurant that is no longer permitted in the upper fillmore this allows for the expansion of the nonconforming use a reference to the code sections was left out of the draft motion before you but youll be sorry added to the financial position the exist density is approximately thirty percent of businesses within the district and 29 of the can he recall merrily formula retail use that replaces a former formula retail use no change to the formula retail use businesses the adjacent storefront will not onlyly only there the formula retail use this Planning Department has no comment overall the use is appropriate and found to be compatible with the nature of the upper fillmore mcd and will file a vacated that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions thank you. Any Public Comment . Oh, project sponsor please sorry. Oh, hang on well hear from the project sponsor first my apologies. If good evening jim council to the coffee thanks for the staff for their support and ask you for to approve the conditional use authorization this is a coffee shop since 1987 they were there since 1998 years ago but been a coffee shop for a long, long time we want to work to arrange the location their back up and operating and we ask for your support so a representative is here in case you have questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Now open up for Public Comment. Hello my name is Sarah Johnson i would try to mention this ive invested in property not aware they said its site there for a long time and because of people go in there and you know try to make a lot of not very good plans i have to pay this so im looking at more as market in Market Street and also that in phil business and try to get any computer and do classes so ill be very that establishes Health Care Start i also have the noon classes and degrees and they have told me should some of the things im already qualified for so im you know looking for more contracts to be you know put into the better the computers the better will be im looking at one 200 to understand some of the things to be stranded out and a Radio Station and i love them very much their songs they put out is good and im sorry i have not been down there ive been trying to recounty from this tumor it is not easy the thing im been making it and thank god finally you know succeed in you know my Current Communications and my progress and id like to make it to where those coffee shops you you know businesses on you know staying and that in this area and you know we have a more progressing we can do you know federal loans and stuff that we need to make this possible and i hope that you understand me a whole lot better than when i was ill having problems with my tumor in my head he won an award for having ththis and good afternoon. Im paul wormer this location is in my neighborhood i was involved way back when when out the door wanted to open on bush street and getting the neighborhood associations to come before the Planning Commission and urge that the restriction on the number of restaurant in the european fillmore b be lifted one of the the restriction on new restaurants one of the things we wanted though is part of that is an agreement that formula retail use food service would be prohibited from the upper fillmore commercial district that was part of the agreement tully have been before formula retail use was a concept. Im concerned that because a preexisting chain on first name is considered a nonconforming use a formula retail use restaurant oh, were replacing the formula retail use routine u restaurant im concerned the Planning Department knows this is took expand the square feet for a formula retail use given we have this band in place if were going to replace the conforming that didnt expand the area occupied i understand full well actually i didnt see has been given federal and state this is about the time juicy was told they were going to be evicted as well that is though the decade property that became vacant because the proprieties were not interested in staying there ill ask you oppose and honor the intents no formula retail use ount restaurant in the upper fillmore we cant do anything about the preexisting change over and over the stores that grew up that like the lounge we have love la lounge as formula retail use nonexist but those spots were nonconforming use and theyre related to in the other neighborhoods where formula retail use restaurant have abandon that is a will precedent what can go and where ask you to consider that. Is there any additional Public Comment. Okay Public Comment is closed. Commissioner antonini. Well, im supportive i dont know the logic i know the actually i didnt see was thetu one is replacing the other ive been to juicy news it is located to union street this is also a place in need of that type of store so im supportive of this replacement of an existing coffee shop with one that is also formula retail use i mean, ill move to approve. Fact check me tullys was the formula retail use coffee before starbucks but in San Francisco tullys four or five locations i understand your point of expanding and growing bigger a news stand there before but a groeshsz across the street and another 1 across the street very well received in a neighborhood area that loves the model so happy to support and be a second. Commissioner richards and i guess a question for staff are you aware of the lifting of the number of limited restaurant provided no formula retail use is that a grandfathering that was mentioned. I was not present as far as those discussions but the planning code did specifically preclude new limited restaurant from openly in the upper fillmore mcd that is why it as nonconforming use limited restaurant are allowed but the combination of two is not permitted. So if there was to open up like a hardware sophomore not allowed. Im sorry
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.