Harrison street a large project authorization at the time of issuance was proposed jill july 14th but now staff is requesting it be continued to august 11, 2016, a notification issue that needs to be renoticed i know your calendars are impacted on august 4th and 11 have a couple of more continuances to consider that request to august 11th and further under your reading for the San FranciscoMunicipal Transportation Agency informational presentation theyre requesting a one week continuance to july 14th items 14 ab for cases at the fulsome street large project authorization and conditional use authorization is requesting a continuance to august 4th under the discretionary review item 15 for case at the jackson street discretionary review both parties the project sponsor and the dr requesters are in agreement to continue this matter i believe theyre on the vertical of an agreement in a withdrawal today well continue to october 13th. Okay i have no further items proposed for continuance and just as sort of an fy the next week the testimony tdm will be requesting for august 12th or 16 as well as for your consideration. Entertaining any Public Comment on any of the continuance items. Commissioners John Harrison street i would ask to hear 26 harrison the first available date august 11th a nose request to hear on august 11th thank you. Additional speakers. Speaking on behalf of the project sponsor on fulsome street we deeply appreciate the continuance to august 4th thank you. Thank you, mr. Mary questionneptd. Im eric with the quarter district were in support for the continuance on harrison street and the 1 on fulsome street were in confusions with the developers to get the increase the Affordable Housing thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there any additional Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner antonini id like to propose continuance of item one 26 hundred harrison to august 11th and item 6 San Francisco isnt it a fact presentation july 14th, also item 14 a and 14 b fulsome to august 4th, and item 153630 jackson street october 15th. Commissioners on that a motion to continue items as proposed commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. Commissioners that places us on there commission matters item 2 consideration of draft minutes for 2016 ill note were a couple corrections in ms. Swedish after the issuance of draft minutes that be corrected. Any speakers on the draft minutes for june 22nd . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner moore move as noted by secretary owen. Second. Thank you commissioners than on that motion to adopt the minutes as amended commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore and commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places us on item 3 commissioners questions or comments. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. Thank you. I think there was an excellent series in the chronicle on homelessness and culminating with an editorial on the first page that was well written and District Attorney make criticism but put forth some possible solutions some of the keys in the i do not like joyously that that is a problem that is present in good times and bad times not related fully to increasing housing pricing and things like that and it is kind of a National Disgrace because it is much more visible in the cities like San Francisco that is geographyly small and population is relatively small maybe homelessness problems in other cities not as dense as ours is and they noted we spend 200 and 41 million per year on the homelessness problem it was 76 different agencies and 4 hundred contracts they pointed out the fact a lot of offer o overlap and no performances they think this needs to be made for efficient and they have to demand comprehensive care and points to examples of houston and Salt Lake City and new york city excellent tracking systems particularly new york that puts an emphasis on Services Enhancement it is all the way down hues and deal with the chronicling homelessness more directly and targeted than we do we kind of seem to handle all situations dental well need to big bond issue of 2 million and work with other jurisdictions because it is not just a problem in San Francisco it is a problem that is a national one and we have to work with other counties in the area in fact, you know at least 4 hundred and 50 new homeless poem that will soon become homeless come to San Francisco every year and dispense any idea this is as sanctiony for people probation officer want to come here and not participate in programs or follow the laws that was some really well written editorial and particularly the part will providing car comprehensive care and having rules ill urge to you read if it you get it is the sunsetted july 3rd San Francisco chronicle. Couple of comments i have piggybacking off of commissioner antoninis youll see items that that written on homelessness a operated effort between news occults not pick up a publication on line without saying something about the subject matter is it so precedence is ive accident go here for 25 years it is coordinated a lot of the ideas have validity to them i hope we and the supervisors and mayor and everyone involved can look at it and determine how we can get stuff implemented i was reading the New York Times on friday july 1st came across an item of capacity talking to to the sidewalk negative impact new york here we are in San Francisco talking about not enough parks or transportation all this population coming but no infrastructure to support it and here 2, 3, 4 new york city the population increased so much the sidewalks were not big enough to hold the people especially in key areas and talking about people walker in the street not walking on the sidewalk that is something that really, really resonated with me there are limitations physical limitations to growth this is one of them and interesting enough tim 7 vision zero one of the items that we have in that general plan amendment talks about the width of the sidewalk need took wide enough to handle the people and the infrastructure not just transportation and he in yesterdays chronicle the city will buy a new park that will be coming at 11 a half acre in the park which is i believe part of eastern neighborhoods vision and plan to create for parks that city is incredibly underserved that wont be online for another 10 years and no parks coming 15 years later this is some of the frustration were seeing in the city to have all the population but the infrastructure is far behind it thanks. Commissioners, if theres nothing further, well move on to Department Matters drouchlts. Thank you joans and good afternoon, commissioners i want to take a moment and introduce you to the interns that are many in the audience the Internship Summer Program has begun if i can ask you to stand up are for a minute of two ill node go through the list 31 interns in the department blessed with a people from a variety of backgrounds and from all over the country they work fulltime equipment for students over 5 hundred applications some of the projects that theyre working on the civic and transportation planning, theyre working on Affordable Housing and sustained issues alternate historic conservation context statements as part of project programming it is a 12 week program each internship or intern is paired with a supervisor and weekly site visits asia presentations lead by the members of staff obviously they come to hear the preservation in our part of word and the summer theyll present their work to the staff at which time the christmas it welcome to attend were appreciated of your work and welcome you to the department and to the commission i just lastly want to thank tina the intern supervisor that organized all the events and a great mentor to all of them welcome. Welcome and congratulations i think i mentioned when i first came on the commission we benefit from having angle intern to do something with us thats an issue we should consider we may come up with to benefit did intern in terms of learning great thanks and welcome. Commissioner moore. Director rahaim what unique did you use to get the students if abroad. We proposing i mean tina knows better than i do but we broadened the outreach in terms of how we announce the program and different sounds and taping into more and more outlets and venues for minority students programs and different outlets so were broolgdz out as much as we know that is getting the word out as broadly as we can and try to tap into as many resources as possible. Are many of the students interns still students. Yeah. A group of High School Students and most i think under and graduate levels thanks. Commissioners that places us on item 5 no report for the board of supervisors, board of appeals or the Historic Preservation commission so we can move on to general Public Comment snooifd 15 minutes at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction 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 up to three minutes. I have no speaker cards. Any speakers for general Public Comment . Thank you. I got the notice about this in our streets i think i figured out how to make this on the big screen well peak on this to hopefully and if not ill talk through it. You got it. No way ill state without techniqueal presentation should my brain retain thirty percent that is 3 times id like retain it and the map of our income our average income and the triangle the sutter street as to the west is van ness and the south is market that hosts the highest multi lane one way this Commission San jose years ago approved the plan one way streets what happens on a multi way street a lot more vehicle mass if ill an individual weighing one and 60 versus 4 hundred or 8 hundreds pound cars. Whoops 35 35 mileperhour down the street pretty cool ill get sound but 35 mileperhour what that means in january jacobs i saw a lot females brother the 60 it was a male dominated and jan wrote to the interns wall the death and life of Great American cities and the camtc if im an individual and want to visit union square and have a lot of vehicle mass moving towards me what do you mean it the Retail Businesses and less egos on the street chapter two less people are shopping the businesses and walking up and down the street we have the highest rate of crime thats something we should look at it and as the commission you see not only the largest public realm but public space and a lot of interesting things you guys see in this commission and it would be wonderful to look at those a couple of things on the matter is richmond and 234u heaven have a couple of downtown plans theyre looking at reverting their multi one way streets and hundreds doing the same and keep up the good work thank you, sir. Any other additional general Public Comment please walk to the podium. You have to speak into the microphone please. I just wanted clarification on what the general Public Comment is and do you wait until your specific issue comes up. If it is if youre comment is on an agenda item you need to wait until the item is called. What. Unless it is continued what you, you interested in. 12. Youll wait until that item is called comment . General Public Comment seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners that places us under our regular calendar on item 7 item 6 is continued for case vision zero general plan amendments. Good afternoon, commissioners lilia Planning Department staff im here with a proposal to make changes to the general plan to reflect the citys vision zero maria with the sfmta is the cochair of the task force is here with me as well id like to provide a quick overall of go vision zero and provide a highlevel overall of the changes ill note the department is working on a large update a multi year effort until the amendment before you is with vision zero and Public Safety. So just as a reminder vision zero was a citywide goal to create a culture for Traffic Safety to make sure that they dont result in serious Bodily Injury and adopted as a policy in 2014 the city a working to achieve vision zero through a number of the designs of the street and campaigns and targeted improvement and changes to city policy in june of 2014 i was before you with a resolution which of the adopted and the commission passed this resolution in support of vision zero and outlined a number of things the department can help to achieve that goal since the resolution the department implemented congressmans to how we review the straights to look at streetscape and flagged it so those streets and map is available to the public and project sponsors and city staff our street Advisory Team or f stat is looking at Street Safety and updated the better check list to make it clear that the straight plan it reviewed and held changes to various departments various divisions within the department. So in mind with all those actions were proposing to make amendments to reflect those policies as as you may know the general plan it the city guiding document to shape the decisions how the decisions effect the aspects in our everyday life from where we live and work to the design of our parks, to Affordable Housing implementation in the general plan direct the allocation as well as shape the development the Department Look at the Capital Improvements and make finding with the general plan and other agencies requisite our Capital Improvement in the street changes currently the adjoin plan in reference vision zero norway reflect the work the city is doing around Public Safety that update is really an implementation action that was before you two years ago. This proposal will amend the both the transportation element and the urban design with the specific policies and minor tech amendment to reflect the vision zero policy specific changes include a new obviously specific to vision zero including for the Street Safety and a multi disciplinary approach for Public Safety engineering measures and education campaigns and updated obviously specifically to designing the walking and updated obviously related to the Pedestrian Network and the key walking streets and finally minor techs amendment to make sure it is consistent throughout the element. The Department Recommends approval of the intent to initiate the amendment and schedule an adoption meeting on october 6, 7, 8 inhibitions be happy to answer any questions you may have. Opening up for Public Comment general Public Comment on item 7 vision zero. Good afternoon sue hester he would like to thank the department for struggling with this issue i have been con fronting parts of vision zero since the 340 bryant street what was first time i heard vision zero that was Office Building erected surrounded by traffic to get into the bay bridge i was asked that he people that deal with handicapped issues to remind Planning Department im doing it here when you i absolutely some of the things that should, factored into the work that is not already is we are a city of hills and hills occasionally are obstructions and in the case of getting into the bridge it was an area none thought about how to get to it is so you werent by freeway sees ridiculous constraint specific for people in wheelchairs, people have 1r0ish9 problems people that are struggling to get across streets those should be part of can vision zero deals with coming from my house to here he went over 3 blind hills really it was because my route was interrupted by tree trimming in the street and i realized how Vulnerable People waking over those hills in Bernal Heights are because a car literally cannot see them even if the car is going 10 Miles Per Hour the Planning Department often forgets that the city is not flat we have mountains in the middle of the city and people and this is a plea from a person from senior disability action that have mobility problems in a wheelchair and they have constraints in walking the city does pay sufficient attention that level of mobility and it is one of the enormous challenges for vision zero so because he wasnt able to come here today, i told him id bring up those issues i walk with a cane but im better to get around people in wheelchairs and vision problems so thank you for doing this. And we look forward to hearing. Thank you ms. Hester is there any additional Public Comment on vision zero. One is i was wondering if theres a map of the multi lane one way streets i ask do the mta so if you have a map and the other things this didnt reach vision zero but i call them delivery the ubers and lyft and have public realm for bus stops to do a roadblock powell spot inform parking garages wide the idea that a car share can share from the to one as a ratio if you have 9 parked cars cios so somewhere on a low block to pull in and block pedestrians from getting injured and if we know the cyclists where the uber and lyft drivers are parking that might be a good idea. Additional speakers on vision zero item 7. Good afternoon nicole with walk sf nice to see you all im glad to see this transportation element and the urban life of the general plan are being updated for the vision zero i really appreciate the staffs work on this and at the same time it can go a step further in you know grounding the city in best practices that we know to be true in specific in particular i want to highlight some of the areas where id like to see this policy go further i know were working on a longer than range update i know that will it takes time and it operationally is you know the Planning Department job to plan for the city and set the this is a great way so policy 23. 1 i think specifically the distance between safe crosswalks eighthundred feet this is where the distance is longer than that people cross mid block and see that all the time in soma we would like to see in policy 23. 8 the last half of sentence is removed no significant pedestrian traffic not having buttons for pedestrians we should that signal should be there for pedestrians just as for vehicles and policy 25 point one assumes that if there is good access to transit people dont walk as much in areas with limited transit and vehicles that people will not walk as much we know that every transit trip starts and ended with a walk and policy we would like to see a policy 25. 6 that adds side acknowledgement of the green connection that was adopted by this body and mta so that were designing pedestrian improvements only the green Connections Network and then finally i think in policy 26 want 3 focus education on targeting Decision Makers as well as the public broadly and educating all of everyone making decisions how what the best practices around Public Safety and vision zero finally there are things not included that could be included in improving the legal marking the legal crack making sure theyre safe sea maintaining assess for people opening crosswalks and in requiring pedestrian skill lighting of developers ill leave it at that thank you. Is there any Public Comment on item 7 vision zero. So youll have to forgive me i have no experience im a driver and pedestrian in this city and what inch noticed in the influx of techs owner movein is that there are more people jaywalking and crossing walks i crosswalks without looking in the direction of cars coming there are more people staring at their phones and more people who are not crazy who are just walking in the lanes of cars and i feel that i dont know if this is pertinent id like to see at crosswalks a stop sign for pedestrians so they stop at a crosswalk and a lot both ways and get eye contact with the driver and precede in ireland there is that cars have the right away and pedestrians respect cars in the city of San Francisco because the pedestrian has the rightofway theyre no longer taking responsibility for their lives theyre taking things for granted this is disneyland or vaccines beach we have more cars on the roadways of uber and lyft and it is i think to make changes at the crosswalk which educates and i dont know provides industry for pedestrians so they dont take crosswalks for granted they stop jaywalking in the middle of the street and not looking it is i think if it was car priorities or you know not pedestrian priorities that pedestrians might take their lives more seriously and be less flippant about the safety about their safety about the safety avenue cars driving and the drivers i do work for one of those companies that is enough and being that there is something that is taken for grant by the public that these companies have responsibility which they does not take because of that and so i guess what id like to see more pedestrian responsibility and stop signs that educate pedestrians to stop at crosswalks to make eye contact and then precede. Thank you additional speakers on item 7 vision zero . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner moore. I appreciate the ongoing effort with vision zero the question the question im asking is since nishtd vision zero in 2014 and today, i see a great shift in where we were then and now and i think it will be picking up on what some of the Public Commenters made challenges weve not vetted one with the new Business Model practice by your ridership companies where you wanted and when you want it comes an incredible amount of dangerous lawlessness not met the champs how we going about dissolutions we need to find other mechanisms and some of them might be hardware and signage and extra changing and light subsequence and another one in the enforcement the amount of danger is literally everyday to walk which i had a totally amazing let me brief tell you i was moving both a crosswalks at an intersection where a car reading the driver reading his text message blocked the sidewalk the crosswalk and when i knocked on his window traffic was going by the yelled at me cannot you walk around me i said in the crosswalk is here at which time he was getting out of his car to take it on with me it was a police car pulled up i said to the officer this gentleman is blocking the sidewalk the crosswalk and refusing to let me go will you please resolve that he said was he aggressive i was i walked away but that is one instant in a million the same thing happens happens downtown and when the light is turned red for the cars coming around the corner every minute this is where vision zero is a great idea now not created additional amount of safeties but because of changing bills model created nor selfrightness and that basic discussion i think things have to change including sharp elbow oing a pencil. Campaign. One thing we need to look at putting barriers wherever on the mediums on busy streets to keep jaywalking from concurring one point is lombard particularly in the middle of the innovate connected with drinking people are trying to jaywalk it is dangerous and putting a big enough barrier they canned do it medical cannabis dispensary mid block will discourage it and another is importantly toll drive if a berry detective and starting to proceed towards downtown and people are two lazy to walk a half a block to the stop sign or traffic light and it is still dangerous your not anticipating pedestrians coming through so thats one thing i think 3 could begin to help the other thing is downtown we have a very good system on montgomery street around some of the larger streets pushing pine and california probably you have a system where there is walk on this and then they actually cross diagonally and the various traffic functions like right turns with the most popular important and the thing that causes problems people trying to make right turns and pedestrians never ended so theyre trying to make that right turn at the last second and thereer accidents the same technology throughout the city where there are pedestrian traffic as well as auto traffic to allow right turns and left turns is dangerous from according in consolidation with pedestrians the other thing is i think were adding more bike lanes and this is very good we have designated brick streets and things like that that is to be enforced because we made a designated bike street going up in upper market a nice street parallels and bikes insist on riding on upper market which is really a hazard for us and traffic not anticipating bikes so while we are encouraged bike lanes and encouraged bikes i streets that are quieter that should get them off the streets you dont ride a bike on a freeway not on pine or bush and franklin are one of the streets it should be reserved for auto traffic only the other thing we have to be defensive when we drive there are a lot of people in parts of city that will ride across the light even though this is red light youll not combat this children by the age of three or four understand red lights and green lights but obviously some people dont either dont know or think that applies to them thats another possibility of accidents those are some of the biggest things the other thing is traffic calming there which is a time in the not to distant past probably 40 years ago the avenues didnt have streets there were blind intersection one of the cars i own was involved in an, an adam or accident a person alabama often there are hills involved that makes vision difficult so there are a lot of places were trying to get a stop sign on about winston because people coming out of stones town and race in time to make the light so for on deaf ears for the Traffic Department is considering but we see that all the time people trying to cross that crosswalk so there are a lot of things it what about done as traffic calming is not just you know cars but vision zero has to take into account pedestrians, automobiles and bicycles and unfortunately, the Worst Development a mobile email 10 years ago maybe 14 i mean people went home and read their email i dont have one of those thing is it really so important you put your life at risk or other peoples lives at risk youll find out about that when you get home or in a safe place to turn on your device and like driving and texting some sort rule against that that is another thought. Commissioner johnson. Thank you yeah, just a really quickly first of all, a young lady came up with a change if you can hand this up it has a lot of things i text a lot well it that would be helpful make a decision like today. Oh, initiating. This was ann an initiation there will be meeting following this well want theyre written comments. Thank you okay. Thank you for the correction fellow commissioners a couple really quick things first of all, the first one is one item here in the motion about pedestrian on classifies and not clear if that was a policy could staff maybe clarify on the policy 25. 4 and unclear and other things about the pedestrian on and on classifies. It is and thats fine and maybe before the next hearing get it clarified and the other thing do we have anyone if the Bike Coalition here or anyone biking or cycling anyone yeah. Heres my comment and Association Hearing well see this again saw a lot of references to sort of separating prioritizing Public Safety and separating traffic from pedestrians i didnt see anything related to sfrait the cyclists or biking from pedestrians or separating biking from traffic i think that policy 27. 8 gets there but that would be great to make sure that the Cycling Community the reason i bring that up is theres a whole vision zero the poster vision zero project in the embarcadero how to reenvision the traffic along that stretch from kings street kind of Fourth Street and kings if you dont have anything in the plan that outlines the citys opinion how cyclists and pedestrians entering mix if it help projects like that i want to make sure the language sort of reflects what the cycling e Cycling Community other than that im looking forward it be part of adjoin plan and looking forward for more comments in the nurture future. One thing the additions are related to the pedestrians mostly it is out of eight the bike section of the transportation element is still in there are and a now number of policies that reflect our bike safety and routes is not in here because were not touching it. I know that 27. 8 specifically called out bifurcating for the vision zero for Public Safety i dont remember if the bike plan theres not specific language in the bike plan about the separation of the uses in that bike plan so vision zero because around Pedestrian Safety it reflects the visions for how those modes of transit interact i understand there is bike lanes but to make sure it is reflected in the policy adjustments for vision zero. We make sure their consistent. Thats all. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner wu. Thanks also thanks to walk sf that would be helpful ill go one step further to ask them to have them in the second packet so the commission can have that at their fingertips and want to move to schedule a public hearing after october 6th. Second. Some comments i have interesting enough im assuming then when we get large projects with the developments theyll be finding in our transportation element based on the specific project for vision zero for pedestrians is that the case . If what youre asking when we make the general plan finding in the element projects specifically with the sections i think sure we can look at how we do that and we cite sections. Especially on the key sites weve had several projects like 9055 street was an issue with loading and unloading on a busy street and the people needed to move into their apartment had to walk around the corner with the conflicts with the pedestrians and other vehicles so anything that you do to help us to make sure the projects also consistent or identify like ms. Hester brought up about the Office Building in the middle of an that would be helpful. This is what we do to provide consistency. Excellent he echo all the others comments the commissioners made one thing if scares the heck out of me is skate boarders theyre not walking are driving their skateboarding and sometimes on the sidewalks and in the street and no helmets on i dont want to happen it wont be pretty. Director rahaim and before we finalize it i want to thank lilly and the staff for their work i think that to the gentlemans comment on one way streets ive been struck by the fact it the decisions that were made 20 maybe thirty years in turning streets south of market and the tenderloin is a one way streets was a time we remember United Health care workers those streets as a way to get cars quickly from and to downtown and not understanding the long term implementations now were in a situation to look at restoring that were indeed south of market in the central soma plan and in the eir looking at at the turning fulsome the entirety of fulsome and a lot of support for that that make sense and a lot of interest in doing the same in the tenderloin on a work plan in the coming years it is important i think that is important factor in terms of safety and Pedestrian Safety and having traffic move faster and frankly and need for less crowded streets it is one of those things we definitely wanted to look at in the long run. Hayes street was made into a oneway street it helped. Commissioner moore. What you were saying came at the heels the freeway revolt with a big split between to those people that agreed with that and didnt making streets the one way you made a even if a policy of 25 mileperhour and people go down the streets 40 and 50 and 60 Miles Per Hour. Commissioners, if theres nothing further, well move on to initiate and schedule a public hearing on or after october 6th on that motion. Commissioner antonini. Commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore. Commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. Commissioners that places us on item 8 housing balance report planning Code Amendments. Good afternoon, commissioners sdirgz im presenting a code for the inclusion about the withdrawal in Housing Units by owner movein but before i continue id like to provide supervisor kims time to present to you. Good afternoon commissioner Vice President richards and commissioners april 2, 3, 4 from supervisor kims thank you for considerably that legislation today it is a simple change to clarify the intent of our the legislation that we sponsored several years ago this is the housing balance legislation for the production of Affordable Housing in San Francisco this was in conjunction with prop k that the supervisors supported with the mayor at the time to insure we are providing 33 percent Affordable Housing in the city and up to 50 percent Affordable Housing including the middleincome that is an important effects to make sure were tracking how were doing towards that goal on by annual basis so in the spring and in the fall that legislation and our legislation we intended to understand and loss of housing due to the loss of rentcontrolled units and silent on the issue of owner movein eviction i want to thank the Planning Department staff and teresa and her staff for including the owner movein evictions the thinking that was important to not make that file and really make clear our intent and prairie significant this nofault eviction has been siege on upward trend so i think that is important that we track this information this is i want to also just in terms of report i think we had 3 reports since the package of that legislation and being useful information to shift our policy thinking to also preserve and acquire existing units we are producing more Affordable Housing but were also losing rentcontrolled units at the rate of every 7 affordable unit were producing losing 5 rentcontrolled units that is significant and something we need to continue to attract and develop policies around and so i ask for your support and clarifying including this as part of housing balance report and something that is recorded in all the reports so far and want to make it clear in the original legislation and then i wanted to speak also to the reports and the reporting deadlines currently dollar reporting deadlines are i believe april 1st and september 1st and in this staff report is makes clear the desire to sync up the reports with other reports that planning is rirtdz to do like the Housing Inventory and the pipeline reports i think that makes a lot of sense and so we would be okay with moving the data to april 1st and no, im sorry is it april 1st . And october 1st. So these are dates that are originally february 1st and august 1st youve been moving the dates i think this is important we maintain the suggestion to have a hearing a month after those reports are due the intent with the april hearing is to have this hearing coincide with budget hearings in the if theres a desire to influence the budget in such a way to address the data weve seen from the housing balance report well ask you consider to have the hearing no matter april 15th rather than may first the mayors budget submission is at the end of may will give us time to have those kinds of conversation that the budget and finance or go Land Use Committee thank you. The commissioners can ask questions of you before you leave are you leaving what is protocol should we ask questions of the lady. However, you do jefferson if the aid is willing to stay well reserve questions. Mr. Sanchez. In the case reports theyve considering a loss of owner movein evictions and the housing balance report the loss is over 4 thousand 1 hundred units during etch 10 year balance that is reporting you as you may know rentcontrolled units are an International Part of Housing Stock the loss is not only because san franciscans lost their housing but because the housing is extremely difficult to replace therefore tracking the magnitude of a loss is an important endeavor it is important because it is one purpose of the housing balance report as much as it concerns itself with the share of Affordable Housing as a total share of the citys Affordable Housing stock the department is in support of proposed ordinance we firmly believe that further clarifications can be made were proposing that similar language to a harmonize the language and the department is also in support of the publishing dates as mentioned in earlier by april we are proposing to move the march publishing date to april and the other to september and also recommend moving the annual hearing from april to may although were rialto entertain the april 15th at a time as mentioned this is moving those dates are help to coordinate the report we have to put together that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions thank you. Thank you mr. Sanchez and opening up for Public Comment on the housing balance report planning Code Amendment is there any Public Comment on this item. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner wu. Thanks so thank you for you know the department and the Supervisors Office for all this work i think that report is really important i used it yesterday in a visit to sacramento with h pd i know moving the report dates to align with the other reports annual Housing Inventory thats fine i want to make sure that report is not consumed as a stand alone report macro life easier for the staff and supportive of having the hearing date internet april 15th that is important for get ready for budget season to helping work on housing issues. Commissioner johnson. Nope thank you. Commissioner antonini. Well, thank you i have a few comments i can see that owner movein is a type of eviction that makes a lot of sense it should be included amongst those it is certainly the owners right to more often it is a loss of rental housing but not a loss of ava Senior Citizen that has a rental and no longer employed or on is they will occupy their own home again which is very affordable to them so it probably might be more affordable under rent control but 7,000 and month once somebody is absent their rate goes up to marketrate housing so thats the point im making trying to lump affordability and rent control didnt make sense it is not the same thing because often rerltdz are occupied by people that have Country Homes and use their San Francisco home as a place illegal their supposed to be there 50 percent of the time but my patients are saying we can afford we have this rendering in the city and use it as a city home and put our money towards buying Something Else to the general shrubs shuns are not good idea and spoke about the 41 percent loss of units was that a 10 year period mr. Sanchez. Every time the report is published it publishing u publishes a report of prevented units 41 hundred the latest was 5 thousand. Over what period of time. 10 years. Pardon i think 3 includes units no longer rentcontrolled units or units no longer in income required affordable status. Thats what i understand correct thats correct. No, i asked one or the other. Both although i dont know how many units are being restricted. Few 41 hundred includes unit no longer rentcontrolled units i pointed out a couple of instances theyre not it possible as rentcontrolled units 41 hundred is one percent of 1 thousand plus Housing Units we have i know newer ones are not in rentcontrolled it is relative total Housing Stock. Yeah. To the Affordable Housing produced in each 10 year period is roughly then thousand this is when it is a significant loss. Im saying making the division 10 thousand restricted air force permanently affordable those are not the same as rentcontrolled units you shouldnt be considering to the things as the same thing your alumni apples and oranges and making them sounds like the same thing theyre both valuable and one figure shows actual affordable units and as a total number and any that of tempoed or like housing projects and subtract those and carry the rentcontrolled units on a separate category and not lump the two together that would be properly done i mean adding the things trying to be done are fairly minor but adding other evictions didnt make it any worse but i think the two things should be handled separately. Okay some comments i have i guess someone commissioner antoninis i think one and 77 units under rent control i think the department will be doing a survey this dovetails into that one of the first stabs urging the 5 m project a map around the site that was an eye opener what was protected and under city control and nonprofits doing an effort i know financial but really would be informative the numbers here are estimates so harrison and 4 thousand of those are 2 percent didnt seem like much commissioner antonini but if youre that person that has to leave the city it is important were dealing with peoples lives and when we are dealing with numbers i want to make sure we realize that the question i have is since weve had this report how is this data used i mean, i get the report every year and in district 8 is losing nor housing produced in district 4 was terrible what are we are doing with this stuff. I think as commissioner wu just mentioned a lot of advocates use it to tell the story what the citys experiencing in terms of housing crisis helped us to justify and really make clear the reason to pursue what was kind of a fledging idea around the Small Sites Acquisition Program the desire to protect buildings that are undertreat of ellis act or other types of evictions those types of policies and programs are valuable i know that is not at the same scale as continuing to build nor Affordable Housing we absolutely need to do but the scale of loss of rentcontrolled units through the aspect active market some of the things weve been open about on the policy making side in terms of what we are trying to make as a priority i think that also helps to justifies the need and desire for Eviction Services given the loss of rentcontrolled units or rentcontrolled units and also the advocacy around the ellis act at the state level. Where do buy outs figure in those are they consumed in the data as a separate thats not considered buy outs the information that the rent board is tracking through the legislation that was passed recently but didnt reflect the buy outs i think that is just an added piece of information that even makes this situation even more desire in terms of the loss of rentcontrolled units sure. I a couple of several other things first, as an aside dont want to get down to raffle i have friends in the Real Estate Industry they tell me some of the things going on and some of things im hearing nofault evictions become fault evictions so somebody owns the property if you dont pay the rent 3 months in a row i have a reason to evacuate you i dont have a stain on any deed all those things are happening and a lot of backdoor things going on i want to make sure this is not an airtight thing there those ways forces people to gain the system take note of that we play a role as a Commission Two of these last week and maybe more than two weve approved demolitions and reconstruction on rentcontrolled units with 416 street and franklin i know mr. Tony but built prior to 1979 were democrat oing units were playing a role as well for those new units under rent control or not under rent control where is the line drawn. I dont know at answer to that question youre proposing but the demolition of those rerltdz should be reflected in the data in terms of loss and how those in any units get recorded based on i dont know the exact. Sure. I was talking with commissioner on the building inspection and wondering if it is the planning code that drove or the planning code we approved demolition on a building ill not mention the building in the the Building Department said it was an alteration and my question does that mean one of the buildings was created with the new unit theyre under rentcontrolled we need to understand our part in helping this process out understanding where the decisions impacts are. Commissioners made i know that is when a new koupts i certificate of occupancy is issued no longer under rentcontrolled i think that dbi makes it determination. I keep a wall up on the building and demolishing demolish the floors and ceiling he bring the photos will i get a new certificate of occupancy there was nothing to occupy. We can could check with dbi and how that works i think that one of the things we commissioners talked about weve been talking about this and been pretty consistent but all over the map when we have demo projects id like to thinks and the commissioners are those units under rent control and will those take unit off the market it is important for making decisions in trying to be consistent last question is amy talk to people and we have conversations will build for housing ill buy that condominium on valencia street that is 14 hundred a square foot in construction versus Something Else right around the corner in a rentcontrolled; right . Im trying to understand and ask people who have gone through the process if you had a choice to buy a renderings or new compromised what would you do were seem as commissioners and everybody is no youll increase the supply and however one of the things im hearing rentcontrolled units with tenants in them are cheaper more affordable to the person burying is a weird dichotomy and im trying to resolve whats the impact of new construction really omi as the a new condo on valeting not a one to one i want to understand that and two more points i dont want to monopolize it rent control didnt mean the agreement is cheap but rent as be stabilized in 10 or 20 years that expensive 7,000 a month will be cheaper than if you had to more often 10 or 20 years thats what rent stabilization not a guarantee things will be cheap over time we tend 0 rationalize the rentcontrolled we say that is 10,000 nobody can afford if were a fact that off the market we had one 1 on union street we asked them to get out of the office and put it back on the office with the idea that over time it had been cheaper and try to be as consistent were getting a lot of demos and project that involving rentcontrolled units and one last one this is completely off this subject we consistently faced with section 317 that says i know we had changes 317 around demo mergers and elimination of units with singlefamily units we still have 20 percent rule that is not affordable and it would be administratively approved to be demolished i structural with and lay this on supervisor kim is that 1. 6 million just above it not affordable to the vast for the right of people maybe 5 or 7 percent demoing those housing theyre only affordable to a quarter of a percentage thats another issue i struggle with here were really kind of Pacific Heights the city and novelist is ground zero i leave you with that youll put in your file and work on some point in the future and the original 317 last december that provision for the singlefamily units was included as a cu and it was taken out i dont know why. Commissioner johnson. Thank you so thank you staying with us im highly supportive and my quick comments a motion to support with some modifications just a couple of things and commissioner johnson i wasnt going to comment it was ufos change and i think we are challenged with consistency because of did i comscotomies b weve been supportive i dont know what the right answer we definitely dont change our minds on where we control from a policy stand point but project by project were faced with opposite there and then certainly you know you made a comment about is rentcontrolled with a tenant in there cheaper are you going to that potential buyer attempted by new condos it Domestic Violence we were talking about how the buy outs and things that sort of go on behind the scenes one of the things project by project and maybe anguish thinking theyll be able to handle that situation into a buy out but just situations that are way more challenging that people will not take and come in and newer to the city nobody wants to take on it gets messy if you dont have a can i my point our thinking is boundary if you have a new unit we assume weve heard comments that new buyer will buy the units and consider not a project by project but different 0 not completely binary. Thats the point. Just before i make my motion with the data in the housing balance report that addresses some of the questions and possible well be here next year talking about adding more things to the housing balance i dont know if we want to talk about adding in the buy out this is recently online but look at that next year and maybe more data that would be helpful with that id like to make a motion to approve. Appreciate. No an approval with recommendations. Oh. To the board of supervisors and i make a motion to the first one the suggestion language on laws in the protected units and the second to amend the dates to october and april 1st with the annual hearing april 15th. Second. Commissioner hillis. Another question for you. Do you know if we track c ic condo conversions. Yeah. So the initiation or the to this case process once we have that currently in the housing balance report of calculations. Because did you want did you we do aggregates if the Housing Inventory but do condominium conversion in the agency gave out i like having all the data it, its when you aggregate it it gets a little bit lose because owner moveins by going an omi the buy outs are down to rationalize those units in selling the owners are trying to sell them as rentals or tics are not removed from rent control their effectively removed from rent control so again, i like having all the data when we say removed if rent control i prefer seeing that i mean demonstration are removed for 10 years and fiscally removed with condominium conversion with an eviction of a condominium better to be safe than sorry but those numbers are low 200 and year because people bought their way into condominium conversion but we track the evictions instead of the actual condominium conversion and tic people dont rent them back out after the owner movein it is a suggestion i like having the data but i think that drawing the conclusion theyre removed from rent control District Attorney happen until a register in a tic but having all the data helps everybody that is making policies that other peoples money lead to. Would it help if we include a clarification on o m i removing the condo for a indefinite personally period were not able to track when we come back. Right. So effectively they become theyre removed. But again, if we track will affordability in the city a tenant leaves and i agree with commissioner Vice President richards it is ultimately done so why again up reason all the data is good id like to see buy out data and tic data but ultimately you aggregate it as the loss of rentcontrolled units it gets loss a little bit if youre not looking i think your short tripping the loss of units when we only do condominium conversion evictions and something can buy somebody out arrest owner movein to a condominium conversion so i get confused with you aggregate it take into account it i know that is hard there are different rules for different types but ultimately you lose them by demo or through a condo both a tic that changes the ownership structure. If i may before i call on commissioner moore i heard commissioner hillis say a division between respective and rent control if you displace a tenant but under rentcontrolled unless demolished or assuming a larger units it is kind of over lapsing and messy but director all and tells us United States the way one of the things when we did the 5 m i believe you appointed someone in our team they checked the tax filing of the parcel with the Administration Fee take into consideration on or not there are ways to figure out if it is rent by whether that special fee is tacked on obviously people dont realize it but a good indication is that rented. Commissioner moore. In the area of data one significant gray area that is easily 6 years ago when that was first brought up and those are the numbers of vacant unit about 6 years ago they ran data about 33 thousand dwelling units which stay empty many of these units were counted stand empty today and now in attaching overseeing vacant units to either evictions or supposed owner movein or getting out of rental business a Large Resource still to be captured units that one may have to be made available president chiu was tdr in looking at it but difficult to legally do that that particular issue still is a big question mark for me, i wish wed find a handle of a baseline how many units are unaccompanied and why and what are the newcomer subtraction of units that could be available a phenomenal question he happen to live in an area the number is straefrlg large ill take you on an evening walk you can enjoy the former rental homes theyre all empty and think that is a question which we need to get a handle on. When we had a project last week 1615 grant 22 place to have i dont know how many. 16 unit. 16 unit sitting under rentcontrolled units but the attendants were ellis acted seven years earlier to your point when i first came on the commission reviewed the vacate unit counts that the department did with spur and we have that report around 25 thousand units and roughly will 10 thousand were not counted for meaning theyre not for sale or under construction the hard knot was 10 thousand i think that was what commissioner moore is referring to im sure the department will get you that report neither here nor there two years ago it was two years ago. Commissioner antonini. Thats a very good point the city should try to find owners theyre willing to talk about be why their units are not rented and most of it operationally is fear because of laws they feel have something in getting a tenant and not get rid of the tenants and not involved in buy outs but possible lawsuits and they own the property out right so it make sense for them to wait until they have a Family Member to come up it or leave it vacant you cant force people a lot of it it the types of tenancies control measures that exist in San Francisco im not saying in their necessarily bad but deterrent from many owners putting in their units on the market we hear me marketrate is luxury housing on the other hand, and some are less than one thousand square feet and the price is determined by the market San Francisco a desirable market figure you take the same unit it would be in stockton maybe sells for a third of was it sells for here thats the way it is and a desirable place for probably a circuit century and one half prices are very high and a lot of the tension exists we only have 1 3rd of the population that owns their residence and thirds are renter half of the National Average and work to encourage people to buy their own homes and promote policies that encourage the creation of more hopper opportunities and been the opposite was a lot of the things like guess condominium conversion now you cant get a tic get both a lottery for 10 years because of the accommodation in the pipeline tic is ouch a way sometimes used for investors but for people simply 3 of them getting together and a buying a building and living as tenants before they split them out as condos thats a good system those are a lot of my points i think we have to really look at you know what we have here in San Francisco and probably not going to reverse the market we cant determine who gets to live in San Francisco we have to protect people who are living here that want to stay living here and trying to change the exterior economic mass state of San Francisco is something the city is not going to do and probably will be illadvised to do so, anyway i think that one of the things i always was taught you know buy youre own place didnt matter where you buy but own your own property save money and drive a crappy car but buy youre own place i be that is expensive in San Francisco but a place to find something you can own. Commissioner wu. I just want to ask a clarification on the motion i think the april 15th date did you want the specific language no later on the april 15th because of budget. No later than is more flexible than having a hearing was that the motion on. By april 15th that would be great great. Thank you for your the comment well take that back to the supervisor and work with the Planning Department staff and the data team all the data is important i heartened to hear you, you think that is important in terms of your role as commissioners. Thank you commissioners, if theres nothing further, well move on to a there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with said modifications commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and commissioners that places us on 9 abc for cases geary boulevard conditional use authorization slope boulevard and case no. 15 at the san bruno a conditional use authorization those are 3 separate locations, however, theyre the same project manager and might be wise to consolidate those into one. I need to make a closure i have a holding at at t for the 15e7 and asked what the properties impacts would be on those 3 locations didnt rise to the level ill be to recuse myself thank you. Good afternoon commissioner Vice President richards and members of the commission and staff todd kennedy with the San FranciscoPlanning Department staff the 3 the item before you a request foyer conditional use authorizations to allow formula retail use at t to operate in 3 different locations here in the city the proposed locations are the Outer Richmond on geary boulevard are the lakeshore plaza and the excelsior on san bruno avenue all 3 locations are vacant and occupied by a formal formula retail radio shack less than 5 thousand square feet they all are located in the ground floor in neighborhoods commercial district and vacant minor signage are proposed for each location under the zoning code a conditional use authorization is required for this formula retail use to operate in those neighborhoods commercial districts to date the department has not received any opposition 0 those proposals, however, for the slope location the department has received one acquire from the Neighborhood Group discussing the plaza and the Property Management not related to the formula retail use for the geary location the department has one letter from the great geary merchant and Property Owners associations in support of the project. The Department Recommends approval of the all 3 proposals and buildings those are necessary and desirable for other following reasons the project sites are vacant and not displace any existing tenants and not only increase side concentration of the establishment by one percent each, the projects will not be expected to effect the traffic parents and served by the Public Transit addressed lakeshore plaza sites has a large auto parking lot to serves the plazas 5 hundred plus Parking Spaces are provide and at the meat the Planning Commission performance based guidelines and meet the applicable planning code and necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood and that concludes my presentation. Department staff kimberly and i and others are hear and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Opening up for Public Comment on those 3 locations. Project sponsor. Oh, im sorry. Thank you im keep any remarks brief tom of reuben, junius rose on behalf of the project sponsor we appreciate the staff report and staffs support for the 3 locations we feel like it is theyre pretty stared applications with the formula retail use in vacant spaces where formula retail use recently exist not proposing any examinations or interior changes just signage those are busy commercial districts served by transit there important location for at t those are not just difficult rail stores as you may know they provide Important Services cellular and Internet Services expanding to their customers so it is important for at t and their customers for them to be geographically convenient and as staff said were not aware of any opposition to any of the 3 locations but are available for answer any questions or address any concerns you may have im going to turn it over to to our project architect a representative from Spring Communications here for any questions questions and appreciate our consideration and appreciate our support thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon i feel like everything is said we are converting radio shack stores that were purchased the leased were purchased last spring when radio shack left we are replying signage for at t and signage it either remain the same in the same locations in some cases eliminated not visible from the street and otherwise doing sales remodels and bring it up tos today modern standards. Thank you. Now opening up for Public Comment on any of those 3 locations on item 9 a speaker cards. Seeing no Public CommentPublic Comment is closed. Commissioner moore. This commission historically has been in support of formula retail use stores being opted out by other formula retail use i regret that the sliding livelyness of radio shack hike our corner store Electronics Store is not there but that aside i move to approve with conditions. Second. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. I agree you know it is i guess people not buying radios anymore it would be nice to have one once again ive been l. N. To something if the car i leave the program on and trying to convert so to a radio signal the show is over im in support of 0 proposed measures. Thank you commissioners to approve with conditions commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson excuse me commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero the commission will take a lunch okay. Good afternoon and welcome back to the San FranciscoPlanning Commission regular hearing id like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. Commissioners were starting without a chair you need to elect a chair to run the meeting at this time. Thank you can we make that time limited i think that will be until the chair returns. Okay id like to elect commissioner wu as a temporary chair. Second. Thank you on that motion then commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner hillis and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes commissioner wu youre the chair of this meeting. Commissioners commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on items 10 ab for cases 651 geary street conditional use authorization and 2014 at the 651 geary street youll consider a conditional use authorization and the Zoning Administrator will consider a rear yard modification. Good afternoon, commissioners tina Department Staff an geary street with a construction of a 13 story one and plus mixed use Building Seven hundred square feet of retail and 3 thousand square feet of common and Office Space Open space and private balconies is include 26 Parking Spaces below grade in the mid block between johns on the ceda of 30th street it requires a constructive to approve the new construction for 50 feet in height and 80 feet base height and rhd the compliance is constituent in your packets the department of these it is satisfying and necessary and desirable because it replaces a vacant lot with 52 dwelling units 6 are permanently affordable Historic Preservation commission with our staff ashths architects have find this with the secretary of interior standards and uptown and bayview Hunters Point overall massachusetts and scale and 8 project locations and finishes and empowering design and treatment and parapet and design to date, no Public Comment regarding the project the departments supports it because it meditates the policies and procedures and rosa parks replaces with it consistent with the neighborhood pecks ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Project sponsor. Good afternoon. Im peter wong the practicing promise for Planning International r6 and planners in the city and on behalf of the Success Development ill be presenting your design proposal for the 651 geary street the project in front of you today interest to keep it short i think ill just help me with the cover the planning and design process and the project deception and the variance and Closing Remarks. Again, the project history since 2004 the architect are different owner and a conditional use what granted and as a result of the economic downturn and the subsequent code changes and selected an architect under the current owner sure. A demolition permit as you can see the site is a cleared and in 2014 go gone through multiple openings and to arrive at the proposed design im here for the conditional use permit and the variance on the rear yard and related exposure the used to be a building onsite that was a Office Building. Can you pull the microphone over when our speaking. Okay before it was a 20 thousand second story Office Building on that site. In working out the site th second story Office Building on that site. In working out the site context we were looking at the massing and choose the bulk and mass and massing of the building to the surrounding with major sixth district on the north and south exterior of the building some of the 3d modeling that was done with the project one of the historical projects to maintain the water as a foots body and head and the building as a major setback on the 12 floor where we would have a roofer terrace and garden that is shard in open space as a Community Room and then at this point i think that some of the massing issues were working with to make sure that we were able to align certain elements of adjoining property on the east and west side weve talked about working the top of building where it will be a articulated cornice and patented railings on the top like i said this year 6 unit that are affordable units 52 units. The issue remaining right now is the rear yard code compliant is not provided currently in the scheme of all the abutting lots that are constructed without a code compliant rear yard all around us pursuant to section 249. The reduction of rear yard requirement in the west market north of market residential special use district is permitted and the proposed design will not adverse effect the open space for the rear yard of the existing abutting properties 12 of the 52 units have private open spaces at the earn and the 40 units will require 48 square feet per unit as a common open space 19 hundred 68 square feet 2000 plus square feet of common open space with the amenity totally nearly 27 hundred square feet and align with the adjoining neighbors in matching the setbacks and additional open space amenity that are provided beyond the code requirements. So with that, Closing Remarks and the project will add 52 dwelling units to the Housing Stock and walkable and transit rich area with the mixed use development 6 affordable units on site and compatible with the character in terms of height and scale and massing the project is necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood and the project will replace a vacant lot with retail activating industry and ask for the granting of the conditional use and variance request bans the Planning Department staff application thank you very much. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner johnson thank you i have one question about that project so far so to the staff report is references there maybe changes for the need of Affordable Housing based on the outcome of prop c were beyond that what are the requirements i think the calculation for a number of units is 12 percent i think this should be 13 or 14. We talked about with the Attorney Office and the Election Results have not been certified we expect them to be certified later and until then were directed to keep the Affordable Housing but it is subject to the Charter Amendment at the 13 and a half percent this is 70 dwelling units. Okay. Thank you. Theyll be modified to correct the number of affordable units. Okay. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. I like the project i like the design and it is is contemporary and has all the elements of older buildings around it in the setbacks are appropriately at the time sets on the top two floors so i think this is well done and understand that because there is a rear yard modification being asked there is also an exposure based on the fact the arranged is less than code compliant but given the location and the fact is that buildings this big it is hard to meet the letter of the law for a rear yard it sounds like that is fine to me. Ill make a motion to approve. Commissioner hillis. Question for the architect on the side of building this to those west side a building with some lot line windows i i know you accommodate their let that seems go substantially more windows than significant windows do you know on the adjacent building what those windows look into and caveat discussions without the projector owner. Not yet he know the windows have again code compliant with that it will be facing the lightwell in terms of light and air it will meet the requirements and in looking at them there be a picture of them. None where the older building exist and some on the top but look to be secondary type of fixed windows. Yeah. Youre talking about the elements. Well the lightwell definitely you kind of match that lightwell not exactly but there are some windows on the Property Line. Yes. Okay i mean, i like the design it is done well and integrated into the area and be commissioner walker. It is a National Preservation district that is a level to i building that requires really careful attention i think that the way the building is laid out is interesting i do have a question following up on commissioner hillis to the east to the west side from floor 4 to 7 if you look at the drawings a want 333 there is is a question on regarding the lightwells what happens in the adjoining building what rooms are in facing those side walls eye i like that to be answered and staff look at that we need to carefully consider what we do at that location the other point id like to rays for me personally the building didnt quite meet the high enough standards relative to a Historic Preservation and heres the reasons i have problems with gastroand would like the department to representative on its on policy regarding the ground floor raising were saying that retail has to have clear rather than typical glazing please correct me if i ill ask in a moment let me go through my thoughts the second point id like to raise is a i talked with the Historic Preservation and called tim frye and talked about with members of the Historic PreservationCommission Just to kind of here myself go through a couple of questions this group is not Historic Preservation commission and look at it delve they shared port for the staff to continue to work with the Historic Preservation commission tim frye and the architecture review to comment and advise us on particular facade the way the bay is done the bay is not quite following the guidelines of they design relative to the open and closed elements the issue the detailing on, on the demonstration is absent not pronounced eloquent to create at shadow and depth we like on traditional facades these are thoughts i discussed with the people i mentioned and the building makes good moves to design including the rear yard is wellhandled relative to the two unit deficiency not at all relative to brrnd that contrast im able to support the approval of project but like to see the Historic PreservationCommission Staff and the Architectural Review GroupHistoric Preservation commission to comment no jurisdictions over this project but the discussion would help bring this just forward in a manner i think is required for the circumstances and we do have a significantly large responsibility when we have a building in a National District so if the maker of the motion to say prepared to push the ongoing discussion to the department with the Historic PreservationCommission Staff and the Architectural Review Group to work on this a little bit more i can support and second your motion yeah. I agree with all the things were brought up by commissioner moore questioning whether the glazing on greater should be clear and the green glass is appropriate in other parts of building and work with the historical design and make sure it is meeting the criteria as closely as possible i noticed in many believes in the area the difference between the nonrestricted bay element and the bay element the oldest building will have stucco at the base but some sort of contrast between the bay in terms of color might be a good way to do it so, anyway im supportive and anything else that exposure wants to add. For clarity commissioner kwon of the conditions is clear you want to work with the Historic Preservation commission Department Staff was the condition to actually have the Architectural Review Committee have that review it. Thats what mr. Frye and they thought that was a good i personally it is an informal advisory but they decided to do im okay with that has a maker of the motion however, i would not want to see any dramatic changes in the basic form that is established this is done with well with the people with the modifications as brought up by commissioner moore. I think as we said the unit design is tree appropriate and appropriate for that this location not a change in buildings but a general attitude that captures what will reflect the historic conservation nature this is as fast the department themselves has to comment on the green glazing no green glazing on the ground floor and the window detailing and how that is done is probably wag theyll talk about. Just to be clear the motion will be that with the approval with the condition that primary facade be reviewed by the architectureal review committee toe give advise on hangs that are more in keeping with the secretary of interior standard tsf. Director rahaim you caught that well, i mean all the other things are part of what they hear to wasnt were talking about anyway so, yes. Why not. Do you see a problem City Attorney. Deputy City Attorney kate stacy commissioners, i think what our scoring for at least with with respect to the Architectural Review Committee is that Planning Department staff work in consultation not giving them an Approval Authority but they consultant with. Thats exactly the discussion not imapplied we want to shift responsibility but to it was informational and checking with each other for the best results thats all it was. As a maker he agree very good. Commissioner moore did you second that motion. Yes. I did. Just to the project sponsor just to be clear i want to make sure you understand the motion as laid down out. Can i clarify a couple of questions i sense that came before that discussion of the consultation by the way, Franklin Fong for the project sponsor the architectural renderings is done with software that depicts glass that a clear glass not meant to be the color that you see just the nature of the architectural rendering, and, secondly, a couple of the questions related to the lightwell and the windows on the side on the west side that lightwell is predominantly at the stairs for that building and that there are two windows that are windows that will have to be covered up the last comment id like to make was perhaps just a sort of summary of progress that we went through over the past two years now the discussions with both in terms of the preservation staff of the department the urban design group weve gone through discussions on a lot of the issues that commissioner moore brought up the questions of depth of materials and shadow lines, weve gotten 5 basic redesigns of the project to look at issues of both materials the demonstrations and the detailing and the deputy of the detailing those bays you see is reflective of staff comments i wanted to add that in terms of history. I appreciate your explaining that but i think that additional review will help all of us i think. Thank you. Please call the questions. Is very good commissioners on that motion to approve this project with conditions as amended to include that the project sponsor continue working with the Historic PreservationCommission Staff and in consultation to the review committee to further refine the primary facade. Commissioner antonini. Commissioner hillis commissioner johnson. Commissioner moore. Commissioner wu and commissioner Vice President richards. Smoechlt unanimously 6 do zero. Thank you, commissioners. And on the variance, close the public hearing and and grant the requested rear yard modification. Do we need to do anything about our chair switch. That was a temporary appoint commissioners, that places you under your on item 11 california street. Good afternoon chris Planning Department staff the item before you a request for conditional use authorization to modify an existing planned Unit Development in order to convert the ground floor into parking add four new dwelling units and combine 10 dwelling units on the 7 and 9 and 10 floors pursuant to the planning code section 204 the process allows for a modification to the rear yard and dwelling unit on august in 1983 the commissioners allowed a mixed use building continue with 47 dwelling units and 87 square feet of occupies and 8,000 thousands mrs. Retail use and selfservices below grade with 200 and one offstreet parking the subject property in the c2 Zoning District and a one and 0 thirty e height and bulk after the building was completed the property was substantially rezoned to the rc4 and became part of van ness special use district the project is located on the northwest of california and van ness it is sloping with 200 and 50 feet frontage the concourse below grade on the west side and at grades fronting van ness avenue is 7 seven hundred square feet restaurant the two floors above are offstreet parking and approximately 79 square feet of office uses all the dwelling units are not subject to rent control about the rent stabilization ordinance to convert 5 thousand plus of the ground floor garage space in the northwest portion of building and 4 new amenity spaces the existing one thousand plus one story of the building will be demolished and would be used for the private rear yard of those 4 units the project proposed to combine 4 existing units on the 7 and 8 and 9 floors and no net change in the number of dwelling units and none of the proposed unions on the ground floor will be more than 25 smaller than the upper floors to be combined and the project will not constitute a merge for planning code 317 and considered to be a rearrangement of the existing units if the building it proposes to convert above grade at the southeast to new Health Services along california street the main entrance that be relocated approximately 20 feet to the west the planning code requires the minimum rear yard ever 25 percent of lot depth but no case less than 15 feet at all levels containing the residential uses proposes the 15 feet and the project sponsor is requesting a modification through the p u d process and all dwelling units are faced both a public street and side yard and code compliant rear yard the proposed ground floor from the 15 foot deep rear yard kr5e9d by the demolition of the building and give this rear yard is not code compliant the project sponsor is requesting a motivations to the dwelling unit exposure requirement the department continues to remedy the Planning Commission recommend this as the project is the under utility offstreet parking and reduce the number of that concludes my remarks from 200 and 1 hundred plus that encourages walking and cyclist and other uses and results in a total of 25 two bedrooms and 3 three bedrooms which will be suitable for families with children and the amenities by providing open space and outdoor dog run and fitness places improves the transparency of the building by adding other things with the facade that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions. Thank you project sponsor. Thank you, john with reuben, junius rose on behalf the project sponsor and he did a good job of talking about the aspects of this project which is essentially proposing the modernization of this existing mixed use building that will result into conformance with the city planning policies as well as the planning code as mentioned the building was originally exhausted by the Planning Commission in 1983 if i could get the overhead please youll recognition this building california and van ness 47 dwelling units in the rentcontrolled and 87 thousand square feet of office use and 200 and one offstreet parking that is thirty percent grandchildren allowed and 12 bike parking 20 percent of bike parking requirement it proposes a mix of changes to the building doing a number of greener with the transparent to a large blank wall as you approach the corner of van ness this blank wall right here will add transparent that will face into the not medical office area that is created by at the conversion of 5 thousand square feet of parking area were eliminating 37 Parking Spaces and reconfiguring the main entry an california street theres a number of things going on additional outside open space by again open that up and bring it into a modern design and reconfiguring the residential uses at the project there will be merging and reconfiguring of existing units the thinking on the upper floors where the mergers are going on a lot of great private outdoor open space and decks but they does not ever units has assess some units dont have access to a private deck were trying to increase the number of united with private outdoor cleanpowersf so 3 units that current dont have that will have their private open space and also be a smaller roof decks added to the building that increases the open space to those units at the same time we create 4 new denials on the ground floor each is provided with private outdoor open space out grade into the mid block open space if i can get the projector again to give you guys an idea heres the end of the building and amongst the buildings that is facing into it is pretty nice open space that theyre going to be approve access to like we said no loss of units and a greater diversity of units 3 new three bedrooms and 3 new studio units so providing more diverse housing opportunities and finally well be bringing the bike parking up to 84 spaces because the project is the building was originally approved at the that you had we need the Planning Commission approval to modify the that you had in short, we increasing housing diversity with no net loss of units upgrading california street for 4 ground floor and consistent with the greener guidelines and does this without expanding the existing envelope for those reasons we ask to you approve these modifications on california street thank you im available to answer any questions. Opening up for Public Comment on this item. Good afternoon sue hester again i listens to the excess discussion you all had two hours ago on supervisor kims amendment on hours it was really good discussion because the commissioners with were really getting into what happened to Housing Stock in the city thats the discussion that we really need and you need it on that case as well there are certain things happening in the proposal that are objectionable reducing the amount of parking this is good at this location but changing units from an upper floor to the ground floor it is substantial change family units that are on the upper floors are desirable for families and can live there with their kids when you shift them down to the bottom you have more of a problem of liveability and i would just ask you to rethink what you were talking about in terms of transformation of housing you were really struggling with how you track changes this is a change it will not show up on any of the reports that i think you would have prepared for you. But it is even more important for you to really dig into this when we lose desirable units by mergers merge means much more expensive thats the reality of things and even if if so not rentcontrolled there is expectation of how much money you pay there will be a lot of money transferred internally and a lot more revenue created for this project. It troubled me when i saw it on the calendar from 4 to 2 units it troubles me listening to the staff report but i have a lot of confidence because you all spent a lot of time back only kims item ill ask you to spent a lot of time here thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner antonini yeah. In regards to the last speaker i have a question for project sponsor surrounded to me like the units that are being created i think youre creating 2, 3 huff 3 new 2s and 3 new 3s by making those mergers; is that correct. The count of studios that are 3 that are existing are proposed were going to go from zero to 3 studios and 7 to one one bedroom were going from 3 two bedrooms to 3 three bedrooms and zero three bedrooms to 3 three bedrooms were increasing the familysized housing it is on the upper floors the ground floor the four ground floor units that be 3 studios and one bedroom. Thats fine this is the program the project does all the right things including that you had units up below for the close to family sized and certainly can be used by families and at the trade off a good photographed and eliminating parking and replacing that with medical Office Buildings make sense because of the cal Pacific Hospital that will be in great demand and you are not rentcontrolled units as pointed out and the size of the units meets the test of 25 percent that theyre not mergers their reconfigurations of the unit so i think that a very good project and does all the right things and aesthetically makes the building better not so sterile in the 80s im going to move to approve. Second. Commissioner moore. I think the adjustment in this building raises a couple of questions, sir the changes youre talking about regarding the animation of california street facade i did not see any documentation of the facade changes you talked through them, however, i dont see any elevations can you explain that i see plans no elevations i do have a problem with what i consider to be unit mergers if this is a project that come forward with adding units because of underutilized says that a thats an interesting idea, however, to only make larger units in exchange for sixth smaller units and inferior location is not doing anything by which this project is contributing given the finding smaller units dealing with the issue of the dwelling units and this is a trade from medium size to larger your description is somewhat accountant misleading no existing rear yards particularly because youre asking for veterinarians of what is already a variance previous arrangement the conditions of the pud barely meets todays requirement of open exposure now having 5 units facing next to a dog run didnt do it for me the units are small studio units theyll be permanently in the dark to the rest a tall Church Building that passes the entire rear yard a 15 foot sliver smaller a length of a parking space i think those are tenement units and i cant support what were moving forward in this city rob pertaining to paw paul and saying were creating Housing Stock were not were diminishing the Housing AuthorityHousing Stock i walk from polk all the way to ive seen this building for the last 20 two years and none on the badge and not being improved to justifies larger units i unfortunately dont buy it i just cant and he would really get back to our discussion in terms of what is our responsibility yes. The department is creating and trying to create policy around the veery dwelling unit the supervisors are struggling were trying to put our best foot forward and only coming up with inferior units are we to have four additional exemptions i think were not doing it i appreciate that you respect what im saying i cant support what youre asking for. The questions i have i think along the same like sir, i was trying to understand from the drawings which will be combined i think i get a handle not clear but the Square Footage of the 10 units that are subject to change what are the squeegees of those and the number you unit numbers. Okay. So what are the existing floor areas and the proposed floor areas . Right of the units the 10 units in play are the ones were not adding i understand the Square Footage the 10 existing are what is the Square Footage of the 10 and there are one bedroom that is 797. Two bedrooms is 01387 and one bedroom on 653 are that two bedrooms that is 1195 and one bedroom is 934 you i get it and and one bedroom it is 666. Okay. And then a one bedroom that is 753. I get it. Lovingly 95 and one bedroom at 883. So which of these you mentioned are going to be the condos. Combined. Okay. So theres 4 different groupings happening; right . Because some of them are one unit and giving to two different units so the person with the one comes in to a 2200 two bedroom. On the 7 or 8 floor. The 1497. The one bedroom as assess to an enormous roof deck at the rear and the other units as zero access to any open space an enormous roof deck thats the thinking. Got it. One bedroom and two bedroom and one bedroom that are thank you for the opportunity u turning into a one bedroom and two bedroom. Whats the Square Footage. It is a 750 and those are turning both a 15 hundred square feet three bedrooms and 1 hundred square feet two bedroom. And the next grouping. I wish this was in the staff report. Well, ill know to get more keep in the future weve got the one bedroom and one bedroom into a 13 hundred square feet two bedroom. And the final group is weve got a one bedroom and two bedroom turn 0 into a 15 hundred three bedroom and 13 hundred square feet two bedroom. Okay. That was a lot of what i was going to ask looks like these railroad appropriate sizes speak goes up to 15 hundred thats a big Edition Small units or relatively although you gave us all the things i think only two of them over one thousand square feet and a number were in the 6 homicide range so again creating more Family Housing thats one of the things were supposed to be doing it only make common sense and the lower units are 5 hundred plus studio down below thats small may not be desirable because of that tend to be more favorable by the nature alcohol, tobacco firearms fact theyve not as appealing so maybe it might be time to go out into the marketrate housing if their that undesirable theyll not be rentable but plenty of people that want to rent close to cal pacific and may not be the greatest unit in the world i had a small part time in my dental practice by the way, a desirable place to be im in support of project. It is an interesting discussion when the project sponsor came to me to discuss this project i said obviously the unit reconfiguration will be the thing that folks are interested in; right . So in looking at what is going on here we are creating smaller unions on the ground floor their naturally more affordable than the units that were on the upper floors creating 3 new you know familysized three bedroom dwelling units i think i said in any letter im not telling the commission what is correct weve got a lot of different policies that are kind of over lapsing and so you know it is a conversation that we engaged in i thought i told the project sponsor that was reasonable to come to the commission to propose this it wasnt some you know obscene project and something reasonable to bring to the commissions consideration i recognized why the conversations is happening and i understand. Yeah. No thank you very much and a lot of good things ive heard talked about in terms of making the building more attractive and creating more and more medical spaces and other things. Commissioner moore. I just want to point out we looked at a large project approval that was pushed out on todays calendar if you compare unit sizes of contemporary housing given we need to pack in density and understand how we live including the Family Housing youre designing here one project which is 2200 and all of the rest 5 of them over one thousand square feet i think that gives us an idea about what the variables are by which we need to understand the units are so in addition to that i think that is well understood i i dont have children many people with shawl children dont like to live on the upper floors it creates extra work to escalate up and down but it is a hearsay than an actual fact the other things i want to bring to the commission attention i understand someone want to urban design and attract a higher paying clientele we should labor market the roof deck with private roof decks their small and being assessed by the hatches but there is a lot more here to renovate, upgrade the building and make that a higher building then what is currently and again, i spilling still believe the unit size that were giving up the unit size were creating are not necessarily meeting the profile or the numbers that we need to be striving for in our own policies. Commissioner hillis. So i agree with the speakers we need to look at the unit mergers i think that is the bigger issue this does a lot of good things this project in converting garage space to other uses and unused upper floor space or first story space as a commission go and the city is a little bit schizophrenic we want more three bedrooms homes and want what we category as less desirable units on the ground floor and passed legislation or encouraged legislation to have unit similar to the one youre proposing in the back in residential areas so im balanced im okay its not as if youre building an enormous penthouse and changing that for studio units if you came in and ask for the 4 studio units and asked for this project as proposed i wouldnt have an issue with it want to intentionally youre keeping the units a legally unit measure under our existence im in balance with all youre doing it works it meets the three bedroom goals and some of the goals to create units in space of that wouldnt be here on bottle tend to be not as desirable theyre in garages or behind garages so im fine with the open space on roofs has been an issue weve looked at. Open space on balance is good especially you have kids that are in a family that want to get out of a relatively dense part of city and enjoy some open space it is there and not necessarily in this area issues about privacy im fine and move to approve. Second. Commissioner wu. Im looking at the aerial photo it is hard to see tell was the building next to the unit patios. On the ground floor commissioner wu. Can i get the there we go thats the van ness frontage and the building is in a lshaped were talking about this building the one that fronts that would be. Sacramento. Sacramento thanks. Okay. Thank you. Yeah followup question at the end of the 15 feet open space is a building theres a wall excuse me. Is there a big wall there. At the end of the 15 feet. No weve got the 15 feet on the property is meets urban design u up with open space on adjacent properties so this building that fronts sacramento didnt go to the very edge of its open space it is not a park but opens that area up not just the space that is provided on 17 hundred california site. Do you know what the setback is. The earth is suggesting it looks equivalent on this section. Yeah. Thanks heres the rear Property Line the shaded area hatched area is diminished and turned into the ground floor open spaces heres the adjacent property and so weve got the building right here it blocks 15 feet as well and i mean it looks about the same depth. I mean, i think i agree theres all these different policies were trying to meet maybe the building could added the unit without reconfiguring the other ones but i think ill align myself are commissioner hillis. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. Im perfectly in favor of the Building Owner to renovate, upgrade theyre building we should currently in San Francisco it is funny it is in bad condition and dysfunctional that building was not before this project our focus should be on upgrading what isnt good rather than discouraging people of improving. The question for commissioner moore what would you like to see in these new studio units or the bigger units on the greater that will make them better or more higher standard. If these units would be added under the idea of gentrifying the city those unit will be added under the legislation that speaks to the accessory dwelling units using underutilized space and adrc in any units ill support it including the changes on the front that are not disclosed with the entrance and all of it as far as this building a garage a paid garage not fully occupied because of that area it is well probably over part of garage with a huge capacity now a transit rich corridor that doesnt exist at the time that was built with the parks with the selfcontainment of the park the church uses i think other opportunities on the wednesday they have space and i think this building would make the right point by adding in turnly adding units rather than changes those will not rent cheaper the building that be upgraded but the smaller units will par take in a higher rent theres the only thing the people are occupying the building on the upper floors maybe have to move to a smaller units what we consider to be their home from a basically philosophy and point of view at that particular moment i would subscribe to you anyone can do the same thing similar situations with the larger buildings with the project and i dont support it. Whats the status of the units were people are living in them now and rented. Some of them not all of them that has building going through ongoing vacancy and the building is operating weve been in touch with the tenants on those units annual leases and plenty of time before anything happens well not 0 do the interior configuration work for another year so everyone is aware of it. To commissioner moores point i could get behind the project figure we get my type of a net gain of units out t of it has your client thought about that. To your statement about not simply keeping a neutral amount of uptsdz and making the statement that the project increases it well be happy to work with the staff to work out at least a net one increase in unit. Okay commissioner antonini. Thats fine i dont think that is necessary but we have policies sometimes that are you know not what i necessarily agree with but if you can add another unit not the worst thing to do but we went through all the numbers that was clear purpose creating units actually could con accepting be opted out and im not saying who will be in there youre making improvements it is good because the rent are going up and plenty of cities love to have this problem as long as somebody is willing to pay for it well know we have a problem when they stop taking a and i will be happy with addition of another unit to satisfy what commissioner Vice President richards was talking about. We can amend the motion; correct . Ill add the permission that the project sponsor work with staff to have an increase of one unit. Commissioner moore. Id like to ask the director and staff that next time when a building come forward that changes to the exterior of the building are being prove or disprove documented for this commission to also be able to comment and a on and thats not given the high floor you have to climb and steep set of stairs to get to the liquor theyll be changes this may or may not look unproportional and then it raises the issue of with whether or not the medical offices at the corner of california and van ness is 9 right use that should be an animated area to compliment whole floods and on the south side wall so most people yield going alongside that a medical building will not add anything it will be unanimated as now i know the offices are in that building which ive gone too many times that building is pretty dead building and we make changes they should be properly shown. No . Commissioner johnson thanks yeah real quick ill be supporting the motion as it is amended we want to say that to me that sounds like a victory we recently had legislation about familysized dwelling units in which the dwelling unit mix if it buildings comes to us today in the configuration that is being shown as the planned Unit Development alteration here the only way to get plus one is probable not doing one of the mergers as planned those mergers will have created the units in the mixed use were looking at bans the previous legislation about unit mix so just put u i want to put that out there ill be supporting the motion. I guess one comment to the commissioner Johnsons Point one of the reigns he asked we have a three bedroom of 15 hundred and a 3 three bedroom of 2200 thats why if you have 3 three bedrooms at the 15 hundred and another studio at seven hundred you have one that stuck out and back to commissioner moores thats why i asked ill support that. Commissioners, if theres nothing further, well move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended to continue working with staff to include a net increase of one unit. Commissioner antonini. Commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner Vice President richards. So moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to one with commissioner loo voting against. Commissioners that places us on item 12. A conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners alexander with Department Staff the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to allow the demolition of a one story over garage singlefamily home and construction a new 3 story renal building on the subject lot in the rh3 with three bedroom and it will be 8 thousand gross square feet 40 feet in height with offstreet parking the subject block is 2, 4 Story Building and the buildings on the subject lot from singlefamily residences to maul multi unit building the Residential Design Team has reviewed this with all the alterations were met the conditional use was filed in march of 2016 but following the alterations to improve the building with the dr facade no additional opposition was received and one letter of support was received in order for the project to proceed the Commission Must grant the conditional use authorization as the project has demolition within the rh3 Zoning District and recommend approval the project is in compliance with the applicable codes and necessary and desirable with the surrounding neighborhood it demolishes the residents is unsound and increase it on a presently underutilized lot that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions. Thank you very much project sponsor. Good evening earl architect al i didnt pointed had a very good presentation essentially we have a two bedroom building like to remove that with 3 familysized occupants one 4 bedroom and 2 three bedrooms each of has its deck over off the primary living space and comments about the access to family units those actually have private elevators up that for that exact reason if there is any questions i can answer ill be happy to it is straightforward. Opening up for Public Comment on this item mcallister please. This is truly a pleasure im pamela ive lived on mcallister street for 11 years i am i came to San Francisco when i was 20 and been in San Francisco for 27 years going on 28 im i dont know if you have a picture of the lot you do . We do. A picture of the house. We do. The gentleman was 95 years old i had the fortune of living next to him and his family so if definitely to basically, he guess what i live next door and if you have a picture im in the brown ugly twostory probably one of the you go allow it houses on the flock that is my i a have a motel 6 type of buildings with an outside hallway i guess i have a fire escape that the architect low basically put a lightwell but the building will be 40 feet tall i guess my major issue with the building is that the original building. Was build in 1909 and it is unstable never fixed up and the gentleman passed away but the proposed building is nothing like the architecture within our neighborhood im on mcallister between willard north and willows 0 a monk on the corner of fulton and willows 0 north that is well known he feel that the building was purchased for one Million Dollars plus what is going took proposed is that these floors are going to be go for 2 million each if not three or four Million Dollars which completely changes the socioeconomics and i i pay one thousand 79 rent if i didnt live here and have that rent i couldnt science a huge immunization on the neighborhood that was spoken about in terms of thank you, maam, your time is up. Is there any additional Public Comment on this item 2755 mcallister seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. I think that is a very good project and a lot of good things and you know it creates 3 large familysized units which probably will be sold i think that is a condos development they all have either three bedrooms or for all are dens have adequate parking and if i lived in the neighborhood id welcome the audition of 3 units and someone will buy did theyll pay whatever it costs to be here i mean, i dont think that is code compliant it is 40 feet that is what the height is and i assure you theyve been lightwells whatever they have to do to take into consideration the light and air for the vanity structures as far as i, tell from the plans but certainly you know is a property that is not sound and not historic conservation resource and i think the architecture i wish more historic conservation but not aboard it is contemporary at least it has some of the features youll see in the neighborhood i would have preferred to see something that replicated the architecture but there is a variety unfortunately, the structure that they of the public speaker that just spoke is probably not a goodlooking building from the 50s or 60s and not historically indulged either not a bad looking building i hope theyll continue to work with staff and see if they can make it fit more into the neighborhood in which it is being placed. Commissioner moore. Cute building high ended i think the building captures in the rh3 adds 3 units versus one unit thats positive, however, the units are highend and what is interesting is that the two luxury units on top of 2 and that have a private elevators as the roof decks are private which is kind of interesting given a lack of open space with the on the units the question i have is why the lightwell from the adjoining property is not brought to the ground floor i think would be important in order to maintain the functioning of the adjoining building not enough to disclose to exactly what is facing the elements but if you are looking at the drawings im referring to it is a2 want 2 you can see that it carries to drawing a2 want 1 and 2 starts at a2 want one with a lightwell and not thats a great question properly matched the lightwell only to the second story not the first story the building overall is approvable, however, i have issues with the built in grill on the roof deck weve talked about that before and that would be something i would challenge because in residential having permanent facilities with intrusion of smell into a adjoining lightwells mostly with bedrooms and living rooms being affected by next door cooking didnt work. Otherwise i think the eastern neighborhoods youre looking at drawings a and 2. 1 is blocked in and as i said earlier ill prefer to see the elements extend from the ground floor up in order to properly deal with that type of intrusion otherwise i think the building is approveable i dont have anything relative to the smaller contemporary appearance and suggest that we extend the elements to the ground floor thats a motion. Second. Second. Commissioner johnson. Thank you very much i said to oh, do you have a response. I was just if there were any questions about the lightwell i think the residential Design Guidelines they extend from the second story but for the light untuition thats for the element we can accumulate. I appreciate youre saying that in older buildings the same kind of common areas from the second story didnt work so with that, therapists acceptable to the after all you. I think see real quick any comment to acknowledge the neighbors that came out here i want to thank you and appreciated our comments i want to say since your first time addresses it a little bit for me this project is acceptable because of the rh3 theyre on the memoranda to large size two across one floor from 16 hundred square feet up to 2000 square feet we want here i understand that the prigs may seem high in todays marketplace but the brand new affordable luxury you hours is tomorrows home really an opportunity to maximize the zone and put in units that work for the type of people we want to see coming to San Francisco meaning hopefully, theyll having units at some some point so thats why it is great especially with the changes that commissioner moore suggested. Commissioner hillis. Well, i share the comments of any fellow commissioners, thank you for coming too i first look at it i thought it was going away into a that building we struggle with that that is the neighborhood that is predominantly second story not a lot of cottages but think of your building i mean, im sure it was not a welcomed sites to the person that lived in there when you have a 1950s building next door to it is the bit of evolution we deal with it on a weekly basis from a singlefamily home to a two or three building it is an area we can definitely use more density so appreciate the comments we struggle with that but this project is good and approveable. Commissioner moore. If we have any probation officer thing to say we did ultimately the the devil is in the details is how the silk simple in psi its appearance with details this building can a lot of good with detailing and can be affordable if it is slapped together a thats where the delta and putting trust into this building will be brought forward in a thoughtful manner and designed in a simple way and compliments itself with detailed and well excused materials. Commissioners, if theres nothing further, well move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this with conditions as amended to receive the built in grills and extend the lightwell. Commissioner antonini. Commissioner hillis. Commissioner johnson. Commissioner moore. And commissioner Vice President richards. So moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero. Commissioners that places us on item 13 exhilarated a conditional use authorization. In an rh2 zones the demolition of dwelling unit requires conditional use authorization per planning code section 303 and 317 the property contains two buildings a 10 foot tall detached single garage and a 26 second story singlefamily dwelling constructed in 1909 at the rear of the lot this existing units contains one bedroom the proposed 4 thousand plus square feet system will be thirty feet at the street for the first 15 feet and extend up to 40 feet for 4 stories the new building will accommodate up to 2 offstreet parking and contain a total of 4 bedrooms since publication of this staff report the department get 6 letters in opposition to the project ill distribute now it focuses on the massing the 4 floor and it is irrational and inconsistent with the neighborhood context and above the 3 and 4 mid block open space and a request that it provides a 3 foot setback at the first story roof deck in general the department is in support of the project as proposed the four floor is safeguarded an additional 15 feet with the roof deck for the puddle after the Property Lines that is consistent with the 2 1 2 to 4 story context of that further the roof deck above the 4 floor is without an exemption and includes the railing a setback from old Property Lines with the lightwells and 20 feet from the building and further it approves the open space for the neighbors by demolishing a nonconforming unit and adds to the Housing Stock beyond a doubt beyond the containments the department is recommending approval that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions thank you. Project sponsor. You have 10 minutes. Project architect ill be brief what i want to say i live in the neighborhood and practice in the ashbury area live 7 blocks from the project and practiced architecture in the area since 1977 i did take commissioner antoninis advise in 1977 bought a 35 hundred square feet victorian and had 5 years of plaster dust renovating it is a welcome comment to hear that i believe the project is a big improvement what is there were here because of demolition but the existing house one thousand square feet of habitable area sits at the back of the lot and blocks the light and ventilation of the two hours on elm street i want to say that it is the house was designed with the Design Guidelines no attempt to maximum it in the last six or seven years this is might project all the times ive been here about a window i think i do a pretty good trying to followup with the planning guidelines with the Design Guidelines i want to say a couple of things about the Community Outreach in terms of the 4 floor it was yesterday he had the first idea any opposition we did the original meeting with the neighbors at that time, both just a few minutes neighbors all four adjacent neighbors amongst other people came the there was a compromise worked with the neighbors to the ceda david after the meeting he requested an additional meeting and drawings we are cement to him we worked out a compromise i increased do lightwell and provide him at our cost with additional windows to compensate for his loss of light whats i thats what i do i typical try to work with the city and approach to those in terms of of how it would impact me, me marjorie and her brother not here they were requested drawings drawings were sent to them 15 months ago and mary sent me a couple of emails asking about the hearings i responded to her i heard no complaints whatsoever about the 4 floor from anyone else thank you. Good afternoon shawn rb a usually the evening before a case we know exactly that is going on what were presenting and exactly what the issues are up until 319 yesterday didnt hear of any opposition in the last twentyfour hours things are fluid and perhaps a continuance might be the best approach yielding the project sponsor in the last twentyfour hours made several phone calls and text message and emails and attempted a conversation in the hallway were eager to try to work 0 for a compromise some ideas and concepts in the last twentyfour hours that we are open to include creating a ground floor units it would be two bedrooms with pretty much the light will be in the bedroom a thousand square feet with its own separate entrance well take that extra bedroom and move to the top floor the first floor deck we can set that what can back to 3 feet the roof deck didnt need to be there and by eliminating that roof deck well get rid of of the spiral stalk were interested in accounting if the continuance is in order and the proper thing were glad to come back were also prepared to do it tonight if you want were open eager and willingly thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Any additional speakers for the project sponsor no opening up for Public Comment calling names please line up on the side. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is Marjorie Crockett owe live next to the proposed house at the 1233 shadeer street it sounds like the folks are willing to meet the objections ive emailed im happy to hear that i feel that the fourth floor of the proposed building is out of character for the houses in the neighborhood and im going to show you the arithmetic drawings that puts that fourth level adjacent to the area of my house as you can see the fourth level here my house it is blue thats the height of my house it rises up well above my house and, of course, the area above on the fifth level would allow the owner to have a go look at all the houses backyards on the street this house is basically at the corner of alma and shadeer it has the ability to see from that level both 3 observation areas outside of that room and from the ground level of that room plus the fifth area of observation they can see all the way down alma street and down into the backyards of shadeer and this is an intrusion both on our properties and in the neighborhood so i have another illusion here of how it looks and we are very happy to work with the architect to change the thank you, ms. Crockett. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im kate i live on shadeer street 3 doors down the hill we apologize we didnt submit in time we thought we had a deadline but happy to resolve our issues with the property i lived in coal valley and last year, we boy scout our apartment on the three story we love looking at the hill you see the lights and houses on the hill the proposed fourth floor and deck blocks 3 of our main windows on the south side of our property when we look out of our sons room or bathroom, that view is obscured by the fourth im not sure about the deck i think feel that is okay. But literally that fourth floor room is a problem for us in addition some other concerns noise were worried about the multi city decks weve worried about the metal staircase people up and down and worried about the privacy issues and the value of our property so thank you very much. Thank you, ms. Reader. Next speaker, please. Hi my name is darlene he live two doors down at the shadeer street isnt everyone really sick of outside developers cashing in on the neighborhoods expense i mean, why do they think they have get a conditional use permit they went the tall it house awhile locals are abiding by the laws where did it stop next the times someone will want to build a 6 Story Building i think that everybody is pretty upset about the president to put a deck on the top of the roof kind of right in the middle of the houses hobo in the middle and look out on everybodys backyards no privacy and i feel theyve not reached it out the community they say theyve talked to everybody about a year and a half ago i heard from marjorie they were meeting with the architect in the garage and he was going over the plan we all said that we didnt approve of it and that it was way good big and it sat there for a year and a half and nothing had been done and we just cant figure it was you know things had changed so we had not made any comments on that i feel that theyre just they dont care about the neighbors theyre not living in our neighborhood this project is not only too tall and huge but ugly it is totally out of character of all the others houses on the block that are many victorians that gives it character and make that a deliciously place to live this project is not necessary and desirable for the neighborhood and i know that is what the conditional use is it is necessary and desirable please reject this thank you for your time. Thank you, maam. Next speaker, please. Thank you, commissioners my name is sammy live on shadeer and president of the shadeer homeownerships association the owners couldnt be here but submitted strongly opposition my wife and i have submitted strong opposition to the plan the building is too much middleincome out and it will be loom over all the neighbors and summarize the top easier areas number one none of the 3 units have been included on the design and no Community Outreach to us number 2 the multi roof deck on in the four story about create an impact on our privacy number 3 the multi roof deck will create noise for the neighbors in the area and number the plan didnt fit with the character of the streets to modern and imposing for context shadeer street is a lot of children and sidewalk traffic in the evening voices even soft voices carry a long way they misrepresent the shared 2way street and omits the roof deck on the sunroom it extends the 40 feet height the detailed privacy concerns the roof decks on the four story and on top of the four story will move circle sweet spots windows including do master bathroom, our 6yearold sons only window and our living room our building is 8 feet learn this and given shadeer street the sunroom blocks the light out of our sons windows depicted on page 3 any best rendering to detailed noise concerns theyll resound with the noise into the neighbors backyard and the external no roof deck on shadeer street the metal staircases are resound from the steps to detail fit for the character concerns shadeer is classic architecture it didnt fit with the street that is a picture of the other half relative to the housing balance one replacement of an singlefamily home of three hundred plus a giant home weve engaged in the conversation weve discussed and looking forward to working on a solution we can agree on thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is Alexander Crockett we apologize for my short sleeves i found out this cast will not allow me to put on my jacket im interested in the project i live 3 blocks away ive lived in coal valencia since 1993 including mire current home by my son and mom live in the right direction im concerned on her behalf and has a house to have her greater than and like to come and visit her, she and my father lived moved here my mother is now a widow she ask feel comfortable in her home and grounds mites why im interested two concerns i want to brought to your attention the main concerns first of all, in terms of the deck i guess the first story is the main living floor and the deck comes out from the kitchen and family room area into the roof deck this comes to the Property Line even though the building is setback 3 feet for light and air and privacy to the side of the both houses here the deck instead of being limited to the ends the family room and kitchen goes all the way down to the Property Line people can look being so my mothers kitchen about 4 feet higher than the level the kitchen people can look right in there we talked to the architect he suggested that they could move the edge of that deck back to the edge of the building that way youll have a deck that serves the family room and kitchen area and have enjoyment of that deck but not up to the Property Line so greatly reduce the impacts on privacy on my mothers enemy home on the side of her property the architect proposed that and submitted to the Planning Department a revision well ask it as reasonable accommodation didnt take away the enticement of that deck and the height and bulk all the singlefamily dwelling buildings are two stories a lot of the garage the downstairs with the living room and case in chief type of areas and the said with the decks flats buildings are flats all the singlefamily homes are second story and then it stops it goes above that and a fifth level on top of because of that roof deck oversee are our concerns thank you. Thank you. Any additional speakers on shadeer street from the public. Hello id like to add. Maam, im sorry you get one 3 minute periods the commissioners may ask you for questions. All right. Thank you. Public comment on this seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner moore. I actually like to commend the gentleman for saying things obvious and hit the nail on the head and there as follows as we discussed earlier we are in our age to so demolishing a singlefamily home and suggesting to replace that with a 2. 87 times larger than what was under it is difficult to bring into balance with our need for gentrification with that said mr. Key admits to well sized units building and because of it including many of the concerns was a raising by the neighbors i suggest we continue to have the ability to work out as designed ill agree with the concerns with the first story deck it overshadows the propelling so the issues of privacy would have been caught the sunroom on the fourth floor is not necessary everything is fine you, however, i think working from to well positions units will create others issues were best served not trying to redesign the project but let it mature in its own discussion because the gentleman at least mentioned all the sensitivities ill have mentioned in reviewing this project thats a motion to continue i would have to look to secretary owens advise on that. Well, sir how long will it take to redesign this project. Can you speak into the microphone please. One i think that would be good idea to look at that and meeting with the neighbors so that will take certainly not next thursday but which im not here anyway but the thursday after that. July 28th. July 28th. You need to remember the drawings need to be back to staff a week ahead of time you need to take into consideration thats the process so the date and come back with a process. I think one more week im leaving and seeing my family next week. Two weeks would be the minimum in order to make it work. So the fifth. The 28 is three weeks away. August 11th. 28 is fine three weeks. Lets take the 28. I strongly recommend nothing until august. August is fine. Thats fine. I would like the gentleman suggestion to be the basis for the start of discussions. Correct. What you said resonated with all of us thats great. Just to be clear your direction here is what ill hearing a minimum this project should include two units. Yes. Two well sized units. Not units crammed next to a garage or hidden in an alleyway two fully developed wall sized units. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. It is too bad this discussions couldnt have occurred but letters from the opposition a little bit sooner would have crafted and got it could done today it is what it is so the suggestions are good ones and a lot of space on the ground floor that has a patio included and that quo could make a noise sized unit with two bedrooms if have you to take a floor up thats a possibility too then the next thing is the first story deck behind the family room everyone is interested as far to the sides as the house itself does what you have marked as a family room so that will have to be narrowed and he agree no roof deck therefore the staircases the fourth floor i dont have have problem with that i mean in San Francisco lymph every house is absent different than the height of the house next door that is code compliant if there is an upper floor i dont see it as a problem it would be mreementsdz you have a nice sized house but particularly if you have to steal something from the lower house to create the second unit that floor maybe an marketrate bedroom we do know how that comes out in the plans and the other thing the design have been comments it is seems strange whenever someone remodels an oldest home their admonished they have to match the windows i really in my opinion like to see double windows with vacuum and something that fits in more with the street your building on i think the neighbors will be happier and look better on mcallister which is is a historic conservation street along there and you only have to change the appearance but having them breakdown more not justice all glazing so those are the things i see during the continuance and ill see what my fellow commissioners have to say commissioner hillis. Yeah. So germany agree with the comments made i think the massing of the building is appropriate i get the concerns with the neighbors about the fourth floor the height is appropriate for here i mean, i know that area well spending a lot of time in the Grattan Playground and a four story modern structure across from the playground i mean this should look it was built today and not prevented it was built in 1915 it will be bigger there is a rub on this you know if we adds another units ever significance youll want more impactful to the neighbors youre going to want to put more massing on the building given was a singlefamily home were demoing im more declined do look at an accessory units a inlaw unit type of units give that i think the policy is not that it is this is a singlefamily home youre going to be more impactful on neighbors if we go to flats and adding nor things to the fourth floor i agree it is over decked and the deck in the front could go and a we see this a lot not consistent what is there but a modern building and should look more than the massing is appropriate the front and spiral staircase i think could go given the ive always wanted to know the history of the building to the south it has an empty lot. We did. But the building to the south the hill has a building and an empty lot it is used for parking. Not an empty lot its strange but the over sized property with an 15 foot front yard. It seems strange but given selling us the extra 15 feet well have two nice townhomes that didnt happen. Commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner Vice President richards that motion carries unanimously 5 to zero commissioners that places us under our discretionary review calendars for case no. Dr public works on florida street good afternoon, commissioners jeff Department Staff the item before you is a request for discretionary review of a permitted project on florida street the proposal is of a horizontal singlefamily dwelling during the discretionary review is filed as the rdt are the reviewed the discretionary review application and requested a 3 foot setback on the top floor along the northern Property Line it is to comply in a discretionary review since june 27th in the commission packets weve received 4 copies of support as the project provided setback along the northern and southern Property Line and removed a portion of rear wall the departments recommends the commission not take dr and approve the proposal as here that concludes my presentation. Im available to answer any questions. Dr requester you have 5 minutes. You do. Thank you good afternoon my name is david i live on Caesar Chavez im here representing all the neighbors who are greatly concerned with this project a unified effort between neighbors weve brought a letter we all signed were not sitting down against the property being renovated were against the our concern the three story addition to the project there are no other neighbors home blocks that extend as high as a that project into the. speaking chinese. that significantly blocks in e tradition and others property may be their open space stagnant and effects of the privacy the prompt is boarded by a three story wall it is occupied by people with mental abilities and Substance Abuse they tend to smoke a lot and use a lot of profanity in that echoes throughout the whole area then the project will dramatically effect and create more of an echo space and block their sorry about that creating shade limit their airness of the yard by blocking the south side of the property by a 20 foot wall why trade Storage Space they tell us theyre not interested in building down but were up to create Storage Spaced and do that at the neighbors expense this sets a persistence for other neighbors that will possibly buy out that most of them said if they do, theyll continue the neighborhood can be trying due to the busy Caesar Chavez and the backyard openness is a welcome repressive from cesar chavez were aware there was housing shortage but not trying to add nor units but only personal Space Solutions weve asked them according to the proposed plan a large amount of Storage Space and like to see the Storage Place in exchange for the closed addition well be open to a three story deck while we understand the rear yard variance might require them having a variance to boulth the tables in as i said a letter theyll agree they want a variance well not block that and in the spirits of feeling of the existing neighborhood we want to maintain the openness and allowing more and more Square Footage on the ground floor would be a reasonable compromise or compromise some of the loss of living space on the three story theres a proposal or the reason theyve told us an elevator needed we requested weve just suggested that we have a wheelchair assessable space in our house on cesar chavez street that works well and other neighbors that are adjacent to them are couple in their late 80s or 90s that button putting a stair lift it works well, for them some next steps weve requested story poles the owner and little architect said theyre not interested in putting them up and not open to putting them up and still want to see if theyre interested in doing this we are interested in seeing a shade study we can find out how the 3007 prompt might be affected more specifically weve invited the owners to come to see the project from our preserve so far they were declined and the other issue is that they dont currently live in the neighborhood or have a field for that backyard and your whole communities of people back there. I have some photos if i can show them. What theyre proposing to continue from this point with the rear wall and extended to basically this shed here in that space possibly another inaudible in the the three story wall inaudibl inaudible . Thank you thank you, sir, your time is up. Youll have a two minute rebuttal. Speakers in support of dr requester. Please line up on the righthand side support of dr request requester. Hi, my name is delores i live on Caesar Chavez street actually, im the most effected on this project been living there nor 16 years i always have problems you know one way or another with people coming to the area my property is close by and i think this project will effect my side of my house especially, when it is windy you know the wind comes and stays on the area for a while and also when the rain comes it backs into my backyard so this side of the project will effect my living on that area there. So we would like to see f you guys were willing to work with them you know to do anything else besides the addition on this project thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is rossi live on that blon block since 2001 im opposed to the fourth story addition and a bunch of the neighbors were here in the room had to leave because of picking up kids and stuff like that they signed a letter and i just want to point out that is it unique block the open space in the back is very nice a welcomed reprieve from the busyness of the street and having the three story addition in the quasi it would set a persistence that will allow the neighbors over time to greatly effect the welcome openness of that backyard area and. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, im maurice i like to show you some pictures of my house the one that is effected. This is the one one of the walls on the house and i got some more over here this is our backyard their effected by the plan on top of this this two walls over here makes like a finally when the wind is blowing on the wintertime this is the next building on the left and the wall in front of us we are not opposing for them to build we wanted to make some changes thats it thank you. Thank you any other speakers in support of dr requester seeing none, project sponsor you have 5 minutes. Good afternoon. My name is jason with at 6 project architect im here with the pardon this is her families home excuse me. This inaudible is a view of the existing North Elevation facing the dresser on the top and the proposed on the bottom as you can see a modest go addition less than three hundred square feet we dont feel a major impact on the pattern the residential Design Guidelines criminal of mid block open space shows the variance in the back of the walls as you can see a little go green square is our proposed addition the three story and a couple of hardly see them some other additions block that jetted out the residential Design Guidelines discouraged alleges that are uncharacteristic deep an tall dont believe our project approaches that description we used all the design methods recommend in the residential Design Guidelines to mitigate the impact and reduce the impact to the neighbors including the side sixth district of the upper level and setting back at you were level and reducing the deputy of the existing lower level im sorry the existing second level were pulling it back were actually giving up some space in 3 separate instances bias groups said it didnt have an impact on the northern Neighbors Without the 3 foot setback were now proposing on the upper level in the Bernal Heights eastern letter after the meeting with them in december of 2014 they said theyre generally supportive and went 0 on to say quote from the neighbors in chevrolets expressed concerns about the light to their yard and not substantially cast new shades and the Residential Design Team found the project was acceptable and ill remind you that didnt include the 3 foot set back and after the dr the rdt met again and quote said rear yard depth to the northern neighbors provides relief and requested us to do a 53 foot setback at the northern side we complied with throughout the project we followed all the outreach procedures suggested by planning and involved the most impacted neighbor our south adjacent neighbor during the design process before the preapp meeting and made provisions that were cemented we cut it badgering back further on the south side during the planning review process and their acceptance was reiterated during the dr process and left hand to with the Design Review boarded and addressed all the few concerns of the Design Review board but focused on the south side we cut those back during the 311 we are not not contacted didnt reach out to the planner and the planner asked me to go reach out to her it took me 6 times before i could reach her shes worried about the wind paernsdz in her backward and approximately dpo or 50 footed setback between our building and theyre building i dont believe that it makes a major impact on the winds the wind patterns to helper backyard but weve offered a setback as a compromise but not accepted they wanted us to remove the entire edition weve held any meetings and telephone discussions and sought a fair and reasonable compromise on the impact and the were consistently offered solutions to concerns but not able to reach a compromise theyre not exceptional or extraordinary and the neighbors have generous relief and theyve received a sargent not overflow room required we find weve responded and the thank you very much a two minute rebuttal. Speakers in support of project sponsor. My name is stephen i live about i live in the neighborhood im very encouraged that people from the neighborhoods are moving in with families and are willing to take an older home and make that familyfriendly and you wanted the current standards and are willing to put their own money into it it should be encouraged the neighborhood needs more of it not less and such additions get some neighbors relaxing way the neighborhood and im in full support of it thank you is there any additional Public Comment . In support of project sponsor. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is bruce im the Real Estate Agent that sold the property i think your approving this permit and not taking dr on it would be you know the end of a great story that is a family that has been looking for a place for their family to move on to live for a long time multi generations and items all those things young child this is what San Francisco needs to have families to come in and be able to modernize what we took in negative impact situation a weekly a quite a few of the of deferred maintenance with quite a bit of obsoleteness a twoStory Building over a garage this 36r9 three story is not a real three story the wind is this were not looking to get an extra parking space that is one car parking and staying one car pca and bicycles and bedroom for an elderly person to live on the first story great Design Elements and it is emblematic what you should look at in San Francisco moving forward i urge you to support the permit. Thank you nancy pelosi any additional speakers for the project sponsor seeing none, dr requester a two minute rebuttal. Thank you it is what be good do workout some kind of compromise theres on this so much you can hear in f this room without being in front of my house and living in their home that faces two 28 foot high walls that encloses their prophet and make it uninviting weve lived on that side for 16 our neighbors 40 years and we would ask you to see if we can work this out process so not so encumbering thank you. Project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. Hi yeah. A couple of points one the owners lived in San Francisco for 26 years this is her home her mother may live with her we have an elevator as part of project as as aging in place the downstairs Storage Place no plans to develop it into or else space part of it is financial seeing the highest is 7. 8 the lowest so 7. 2 not a great space even if it is 7. 8 for a living space for a family it has nice proximity to the student street so an abilities for more aging in place living space there as far as compromising and discussing this project with the dr requester weve we never were contact by anything with 311 the dr happened on the last day avenue 311 we spent that three hundred plus days between the filing and a lot of that was spent having meetings and phone call and trying to get compromise and unfortunately, the flut part trying to find that compromise never any discussion from the other side we proposed setbacks and more setbacks and discuses never any stofrts discussion there so again, i feel like ill appreciate the dr not to be taken and this project to be approved thank you for your time. Thank you. This portion of hearing is closed commissioner antonini. Yeah. This is a welldesigned project no impacts on the neighbors youve got large separation but is backyards on the Caesar Chavez properties as well the backyard for this property at the 1120 florida the project sponsor has taken the 3 foot setback and it is a fairly modest addition as stated three hundred and 4 square feet on the upper area the three story and that makes somewhat a dysfunctional somewhat into a nicely singlefamily homes the project sponsor shouldnt be asked to cram the addition into the lower story with the raising of the roofs or lowering of the building by compliant a thats why a dr and dont see anything exceptional or extraordinary. Commissioner moore. It is a sensitive addition and sculpted bans staff recommends to deal with the conflicts and thats been accomplished i dont find anything exceptional or extraordinary because this is one of the most mildest cases ive seen in months and what weve been struggling with so i really would like to suggest that the neighbors who are opposing it take a deep breath it is normal and well, well within expansions if not even marginal what we normally see consider yourselves lucky the architect together with staff hit the sweet spot with this project is easily approval without taking dr i make a motion to approve it. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve the project commissioner antonini commissioner johnson commissioner moore and commissioner Vice President richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero. Public comment i have no supervising. Opening up for Public Comment anyone have any general Public Comment they want to make seeing none, the meeting is adjourned good afternoon, this meeting will come to order. The regular meeting of Land Use Committee. Im supervisor cohen. Our clerk is mr. Victor young and also want to acknowledge and thank sfgov tv who are broadcasting the meeting. I want to recognize mark bunch and Jessie Larsson for their talent. Do we have announcements . Please silence cell phones and electronic devices. Speaker cards should be submit today the clerk. Items will appear july 19 boferd supervisors meeting unless otherwise stated. Thank you very much. Item one. Administrative code to create aforth preference for people who live our work in San Francisco in addition to existing preferences in allocaturing Affordable Housing units to affirm the Planning Departments determination under the california environment 8 quality act. Supervisor weanser the author and believe he has a presentation. Thank you very much. Ill limit it to 45 minutes. Just joking mpt today is a amendment i will offer for existing legislation to provide a preference and help for victims of fires. People who are burned out of their apoormts due to fire to give priority accessing Affordable Housing. We have seen way too many fires in San Francisco year after year particularly in the last few years terrible epidemic of fires in the Mission District resulting in displacement where people are burned out of their homes with no notice what so ever. Just a terrible tragedy and traumatic event for anyone to have a fire who burns you out of your home and lose your position squz dont have a place to live. Even someone with resources the horrible trauma. To put on top of that, the insane Housing Market inf San Francisco and inability of a good number oaf the fire victims to afford housing in San Francisco. As one level of trauma on top of another level of trauma and need the help. A few weeks goy r ago ewe considered legislation to provide preference in Affordable Housing loterary for people who live our work in San Francisco. This is a legislation im author to say people who live our work in San Francisco get statutory preference in Affordable Housing lottery. Long over due. I asked to snd back to committee to add in victims of fire and burned out of the units and as a result we are here today and distributed language with the amendment. There is a lot of work going on to try to address the fire epidemic that we have. A few years back the board passed my legislation to create the Good Samaritan program that provides a mechanism to landlords to take unvictims of fire or earthquake or other dejaster related deplacement and provide low rent with one or two years with a temporary 10 squaens that is a successful program. Another solution the fire victims assist nss fund sponsor by president breed and supervisor campos. We need a longer solution for people burned out of the units for at least 6 month jz giving preference in the Affordable Housing lottery makes sense. This will place the victims in the Affordable Housing preference category as people evicted under the ellis act or owner movement. We place a sun set date december 31, 2020 and that will allow our seckcessors as it may be to take a look where we are with fires and is it a still a problem and how has the program worked and the board can renew at that time. We also have a clean up amendment with category two residents displaced by owner move in. When the ellis act Affordable Housing pref rchbs was required it had a requirement that the person had to have resided 10 years continuously in the unit and that was amended out of the legislation so you dont have to have lived there for 10 years but left in owner move in evictions so we are making that a [inaudible] after Public Comment i will ask that we put the amendment language in to support and help fire victims access Affordable Housing and ask it forward to the full board. The Mayors Office of housing and Community Development is here today to answer any questions that may arise. Thank you very much. Thank you very much supervisor wiener. Would you like to go to Public Comment . I think at this point we can go to Public Comment. Public comment is open. You have two minutes to speak and hear a soft chime indicating you have 30 seconds remaining. If you are interesting speaking on item 1, come up to the front. I dont have cards but if there is anyone who would like to speak come up. Seeing none ill close Public Comment. Public comment is closed. Thank you. Supervisor wiener. Thank you very much. Supervisor peskin is there something you cht to say some . I scr a question to had maker of the ordinance. I support the additional category of eligibility, but with regard to the fourth preference, how do you define and monitor people who work in San Francisco . Um, so, relating to the original version already put out . Yes i like it ask mohcd to come up who has applied this preference but not also and not required to do so so perhaps someone from mohcd can talk about how that happens. We accept proof of employment from city and county of San Francisco. What is that look like . Typically it is a pay check or copy of a pay check or a benefits statement or letter from the employer. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor wiener. Thank you, so colleagues i move that we adopt the amendment that i distributed and have a copy for the clerk as well. Alright. Any objection to that . Without objection so moved. Thank you. Madam chair and move we forward item 1 as aminded with positive recommendthis has to sit another week, my apology. Now because i move we continue itedm 1 one week. Mr. Clerk can you tell me what day of the week that is . Monday the 18th. Alright. Without objection the motion passes. Thank you. Continue to the july 18 meeting of land use and transportation meeting. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Clerk. Could you call items 2 and 3 together . Item 2, resolution San FranciscoMunicipal Transportation Agency for Grant Agreement and related documents under Affordable HousingSustainable Community program with tenderloin development corpication for 480 eddy street. Item number 3, resolution authorizing San Francisco municipal transporeitation agency to execute Grant Agreement under state of california [inaudible] joint application with mercy housing for project at 455 fell street. Thank you. Pardon my interruption. I understand the Mayors Offices of housing they have a number of amendments they need to make and they recognize thoseitisms be heard at a committee so what i like to do is after Public Comment continue to the call the chair that gives the office of housing time to substitute the legislation and work with the president s office to reassign these items. That is the plan. Is there a representative from the moh that wd like to speak on this quickly . Sofy hayward for Mayors Office of housing and Community Development and you are correct. Because of language that we are required to add to the resolution changing into a slightly different form. We like to substitute the legislation next week and move to budget if possible from there. Thank you very much. Lets open up items 2 and 3 to Public Comment. If you would like to speak come up student the podium. You have two minutes to do so. My name is Helen Johnson and i have [inaudible] and even though they have already said things are reported, level of housing [inaudible] we create other properties to you think you have a idea of what that building [inaudible] i put with our considerations of building houses. [inaudible] for Affordable Housing. Number two, processes that do, you know, [inaudible] thank you mrs. Johnson. Any other members that like to speak at this time . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. Colleagues can i have a motion to continue the items. . [inaudible] i believe this is we should refer these to budget and finance committee. Correct but i think we have to work with the board of president s office to make that referral. Lets send items 2 and 3 to the budget committee. Item 2 and 3 is refer today the budget and finance committee. So moved. Without objection this passes; can you call item 4 . Item number 4, ordinance amending the code to establish Human Servicess fire victims assistance fund. Thank you. President breed is the author of the item. I want to start by thanking supervisor wiener for adding fire victims as a preference to our preference for Affordable Housing category, mostly because we all know that sadly there are challenges with fires throughout our city where we displaced residents specifically and it has been challenging because we have not been able to provide them with any real opportunity or access to Affordable Housing and part of why i introduced this particular fund is because what is great about San Francisco and is the residents who live here who when someone goes through a tragedy of this nature folks step up to the plate and want to help and support and this Fire Assistance Fund is a way to do that. Thank you colleagues, this legislation will create a dedicated city wide fund to help san franciscans who have fallen victim to a fire in their home. A residential fire strikes without notice. There is no planning for a fire. No one expects it to happen to them and men atimes it isnt in a fire in your unit. The fire starts sometimes epiother unit or other buildings but suddenly you have no place to live. Low and middle income earners are especially impacted, not only do they lose their belongings they lose home jz given the sky rocketing rents they are vulnerable to being priced out of San Francisco. This happens to dozens of people every year. December last year there was a large fire in district 5. Middle income earners were able to find another unit but went from a 2 bedroom apartment where they lived for years and son was born to a one bedroom unit where they created a bedroom for their sun and nuke under the staircase. The rent from 1800 to 4 thousand a month and struggling to pay expenses for a child with disability. Hardship cause families to leave the city by choice or force of finances. In february we had another sizable fire in district 5 on folten street which displaced 16 people. I worked with the north of pan handle Neighborhoods Association and alamo scare association to organize a fundraiser for the fire but couldnt help wundser where the sid y was for all this and why cant the government help people when they are losing anything. The department of Human Service has funds in the budget used for limited term housing subsidies for fire victims who earn below 35 percent of thearia medium income but they are not benefits for victims earning over the 35 percent of ami and neither the department or city has a dedicated Permanent Fund for assisting fire victims. If you make more than 25,000 a year the city cant help you if you are a victim of the fire. My legislation will change that. It will create a permanent category 6 figure fund to help victims who earn up to 100 percent of ami. 100 percent of ami may sounds like a lot u but a librarian making 75,000 a year or hotel worker or made are not rich. They are struggling to stay in the city like everyone else and when fire strikes we should help. The Fire Assistance Funds will be able to receive private donations and propeation from the board and mayor. Funds will Carry Forward year to year and the specific allocations will be made by the implementing department, the Human Services agency. There have been several fires in the mission reechbtly and numerous people displaced. I know how hard supervisor campos is working on the issue and want to thank him for co sponsoring this legislation with me. I was proud to work with spl visor campos in the years budget process to help secure 300 thousand for San Francisco fire victims. It is very important step forward in those times of need and thank you also to our deputy City Attorney tom oens and chief of staff Connor Johnson and ben [inaudible] at hsa. I do have minor amendments to offer today, which isorry i didnt pass out to my colleagues but will shortly. We revised the short title to make the name of the fund consistent. We cleaned up a code reference and clarifyed the fund is for rental assistance, not blanket Financial Assistance and changed the maximum benefits fire victims can receive from a set dollar amount of 10 thousand to a max time period of 2 years. This better reflects the wide variety of circumstances and victims hsa helps from a single individual to a family of 7, so colleagues, i ask for your support of those amendments and everyone who is a victim of a fire in San Francisco, whos friend, family or former neighbors are struggling to recover from the fires i say finally with this legislation we can help and do more to support you in your time of need with my legislation we definitely will. Thank you. Thank you president breed. Do you have staff presentations . No. Lets open to Public Comment. Any mb that would like to speak on item 4 . Please come up. Seeing there is no Public Comment, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. President breed do you have Closing Remarks . No closeic remarks . Thank you for hearing the item and hopefully you will pass out the amendments and pass to the full board with positive recommendation. We got amendments that are on the floor. I move those amendments. Supervisor peskin moved the amendment and without objection those moments are approved. I move to snd the item as amended to full board with recommendation. Thank you. I want to note the item is agendized as a committee report. The item is recommended as amended to full board as committee report. That is correct and without objection that passes. Thank you president breed. Item 5, authorizing the department of environment to submit applications for all grants offered by the California Department of resources and recycling and recovery mpt do we have staff to present . Seeing there is no one from department of environment well get started. Lets move to Public Comment. Item 5. Really, okay. Public comment is closed. Madam chair i move this common sense item to full board with recommendation. Thank you. Without objection it passes. Alright, mr. Clerk you ready for item 6 . Hearing how San Francisco medical cannabis regulations are impacted by the state medical marijuana regulations and safety act and any policy changes San Francisco needs to make to insure the continued existence of well regulated industry. Thank you. Supervisor wiener is the author of this item. Im excited and looking forward to hearing this hearing for some time now. Supervisor wiener i assume you have a couple of enlightening and thoughtful remarks. Yes. Thank you very much madam chair. Colleagues, today we are holding a hearing on oversight hearing on the medical marijuana regulation and safety act or mmrsa that was passed late last year by the state legislature and what San Franciscos current activities are and what the future holds in terms of our local regulations because San Francisco will be required within the next couple years to adopt a local regulation around various aspects of medical cannabis. San francisco has long been a leader having a strong and well rgulated cannabis community, but this new state law changes how the state regulates and ovsees medical cannabis dispensaries. This will impact our own local rel regulations and as noted we are going to have to revamp how we regulate and oversee medical cannabis in the next several years. It is important for us to understand how thiss impacts and changes we will have to make and making sure we are actually doing this in the context of 2016 medical cannabis. I think there is a perception at times medical cannabis exists of mcds but the community is much larger than that and there are many types of medical can business and businesses and organizations. I have had the pleasure of visiting some of these organizations engaging in cultivation and manufacturing and it is hard because there is no official permit. We are operating under the model it is all about medical cannabis dispensaries without all the other innovation and other organizations and businesses and we need to make sure that our regulations are keeping up with the realty of where medical cannabis is today. And so, today well hear from the department of Public Health, Planning Department, department of building inspection on the impacts of the medical marijuana regulation and safety act on the local regulation and also hear from representatives from the medical cannabis industry about the impacts they are seeing and what the needs are in San Francisco including for example, businesses that are frankly legal under state law but we dont have a local permit. This sh important conversation in San Francisco needs to continue to be a leader in medical cannabis. If we dont adjust the new Regulatory Framework we will fall behind the rest the state and the local community will fall behind as well. Comeges, as you know there is a ballot measure in november if the voters pass will legalize non medical use of cannabis. I voted last year to create a taskforce to make recommendation tooz the board of supervisors and mayor how to best regulate and oversee the broader use of cannabis in San Francisco if legalization occurs. That passed for the meeting and doing great work and working hard but today we are focusing on medical cannabis. Colleagues i look forward to todays conversation and if there are no initial questions or comments, i invite up the city departments starting with department of Public Health to talk to us but what is happening and needs to happen. Thank you very much. So, bear with me for a second. The powerpoint on my drive was curupt and going to by email to find the most up to date. I apologize. I have copies of the presentation if someone wants to take them and hands them out to the supervisors and should be able to find updated copy in a minute. Again, i appall yz for the delay. Is that okay with everyone . If you can send it to me. Sorry. Im going to get started. I can pull up the presentation hopefully as we get fl into the slides and have the maps that are more important. I want to start by saying good afternoon and thank you for your patients. My name is [inaudible] here from the office ofpologist and planning from San Francisco department of Public Health and here with aaron star and Darrin Lowery who is Deputy Director of Inspection Services from dbi. We are here to present on the medical marijuana regulation and saeftd act and this comprising 3 sep rlt california state bill squz 3 proposed bills that entail different aspects of regulating commercial cannabis dispensaries, cultivation, manufacturing, transportation sales and testing. I do cht to differentiate. Today we are talking about medical cannabis. There is a state ballot about adult use and that is not the focus of todays presentation. So, what i will do is start off by just giving a overview of the presentation today. So, what i will do is very briefly give a legislative history of medical cannabis in the state of california and San Francisco and then ill discuss what the current medical cannabis system looks like in San Francisco. Next ill give a overview oof the current state laws passed last year and proposed pending state laws moving through the California State Congress now. After that i will turn it over to planning and dbi to talk about their role in medical cannabis and then i will concludes the presentation talking more about the key decision the city needs to make and we are happy to take any questions after the presentation. I am also here with douglas [inaudible] who is Environmental Health inspector from the department of Public Health and also here with bill strom and inspector from db eeurfx. I will talk about legislative history of medical cannabis. 1996 the state of california passed the compassionate use act and this was a Ballot Initiative which allowed for the use of medical cannabis in california and allowed patientwise a recommendation from a doctor to use medical cannabis. It also allowed for possession and cultivation of personal use and the law has been expanded to collective and cooperative for distribution and the basis framework for the laws we have now in San Francisco. In 2005 San Francisco passed the medical cannabis act that created article 33 of the health code and well talk about that on the next slide. Since 2005 there are several amendments to this act and we had 3 additional bills passed by the state last year and 3 proposed bill and governors trailer bill that makes up what we see for our legislative landscape right now. I will go and use these slides over here. I apologize for the technical difficulties. To talk about our Current System right now, we have 28 permitted medical cannabis dispensaries. We wont be able to see both maps but the first map shows the permitted dispensaries within San Francisco and the second map that we cant see shows the distribution throughout the San Francisco neighborhoods. Most the cannabis dispensaries are located in the eastern side of San Francisco. The department of Public Health is the issues the permit after sign off from department of building inspection, Fire Department and Planning Department and Mayors Office of disability. The department of Public Health regulates and inspects the dispensaries. The law now says all the medical cannabis dispensaries organize as a non profit collective or collaborative. We dont issue separate permits for cultivation, but as a function of the cooperative, the medical cannabis dispensary be distributed to the patients. Patients need to get recommendation from the doctor and become a member of cooperative or collective. We donetd track patients at department of Public Health about estimate there is probably 10 to 20 thousand in the city. I have a question and dont worry about the technology, we will make dumpt the image you have of this is telling. You said most of the mcds are on the east side of the city . Most is on the east side oof the city. If we could see sth map that shows the density the largest density is south of market which has about 9 medical cannabis dispensaries. My question is before you go on, for what reason is there is concentration . I think it is based on two reasons, one is the allowed zoning and a lot has to deal with the neighborhood conditions and neighborhood input when these permits come up with discussion. I see. Ill leave my question frz zoning but will go back to the phrase you put, neighborhood conditions and curious to know what that means but please continue. Ill ile save them for dbi and planning. Ill try to see if i can get the presentation up. So, bear with me with these two next slides, they are very text heavy so they are going through the past laws. The state of california passed 3 new bills which comprise the medical marijuana regulation safety act and the acronym fl act is merca so ill refer to it as that. Through the department of Consumer Affairs this creates a new entity at the state level which is known as bureau of medical marijuana regulations. Also known as [inaudible] the new regulations create a dual state licensing system so especially different types of cannabis operations will need to get a license from the city of San Francisco and also the state of california. This new regulation creates 17 new license types that range from retail dispensaries which we now permit to non retail license types, which include manufacturing, cultivation, testing, transportation and also non retail distribution. The new law allows for limited type of vertical integration between the license types. The new law phases out the cooperative and collective model and now the medical cannabis dispensries can operate for profit businesses. The local authority in the new law is rather broad. It allows for the city to determine the lands use, the permitting system, the types of licenses we would like to issue. Besides the dense pensry the city can decide whether it wants to allow cultivation or manufacturing. On the right hand side of the slide it shows all the different state agencies involved in the structure. At the Top Department of Public Health is not the state agency, is not the main permits authority but the new regulatory entity, the bureau of marijuana regulation out of department of Consumer Affairs. Cultivation will be permitted by the california food and ag manufacturing is by department of Public Health. There are 11 state agencies in all that are now taxed with the new regulations of medical cannabis. Right now there are 3 proposed bills moving through the state congress and looks like they are slated to pass. Originally mursa was scheduled to go into effect march. The regulation will make the laws go into effect january 2018. All the state agencies need to issue their rules, regulations and guidelines by january 20 17. The state hasnt come up with guidelines on passed or proposed bills. The thew state laws include 3 new bills, one has to do with applicants implementing employee training on mercy with twnt or more employees. The second has to do with taxation and tax amsty and third bill is a set of amendments that revises the first 3 bills. There are 60 amendments in all so i wont go through them but some include packaging standards cant exceed what the state puts in place. There are exsemp sons for Quality Control and more specific requirements around security and details on nurseries. Lastly, what it does is changes marijuana to cannabis throughout the legislation. On the right there is a governors trailer bill. This bill makes amendments to changing the name of the bureau of medical marijuana to now cannabis. It also creates a lot of clarity in the existing legislation arounds license types and what department is authorized to do what and changes some authority from certain state agencies to other state agencies. That is a overview of the bill and turn st. Over to planning to talk about zoning and then dbi will talk about building inspection and ill come back and summarize the key decision points the city needs to make. Thank you. Aaron star, the manager of legislative affair frz the Planning Department. Reviewing mursa there are two steps that need to be considered with the current regulations and bring into conformance with pending state laws. The first item to review and consider outlined in the march 20 report. The second is look at amending existing mcds, agricultural to address state licenses classifications. In july 2013 supervisor avalos introduced a ordinance to submit report to the board that evaluating the planning code mcd locations. The report was adopted march 20, 2014 and referred back to the board of supervisors. To report provided a summarize of the laws in San Francisco as well as staitd and federal laws. Simerized existing control and recommended changes to existing regulations and addressed questions. Staff already instituted some the recommendations that didnt require changes such as requiring preapplications for mcds and requiring mcds follow the planning code transparency requirements. Enhance the dr process by adding Commission Finding for mcd review application. Now there are no findings for the Planning Commission to consider deciding whether to deny a application. Given the Commission Direction when they should take review and deny a mcd will help provide more consistent application of the regulation and also provide the community and applicant a clear understanding of what is expected. Second recommendation is expand the green zone. Several ways to do this is reduce the 1,000 foot buffer to 600 feet. Two, allows mcd in more Zoning Districts and permit mcd on the second floor in neighborhood district. The one,000 thousand foot buffer limits. In addition San Francisco is a dense environment and 1,000 feet from a school can be in a different neighborhood or separated by a major roadway. There are several Zoning Districts where mcds are prohibited where it may be appropriate to locate. [inaudible] they are not allowed on the second floor district. Opening up will expand the green zone and address the clustering issues. It next recommendation is remove the 1,000 foot buffer primarily serve children and teenagers. These provisions is difficult to implement and like the 1,000 foot buffer arounds schools it is over lee restricted. Most recreational facilities surfb various districts [inaudible] there may be need to restrict around sensitive yeas so recommended a fiending be added to the mcd application consideration that if the mcd is located clouser than 1 thousand feet of school or recreational facilityinstead of a prohibition it is a new eproach to the restriction. The report recommends if the green zone is expanded a buffer or anticlustering provision should be added to the regulations. What exactly are you thinking about, mr. Star . You are making the recommendations aboutim concern about the clustering issue. I represent neighborhoods on the southeast part of San Francisco and most of the green crossed areas fall within supervisor avalos district. There is spillage, if you will. Supervisor avalos in his district in Mission Street has a buffering requirement that doesnt prohibit mcds located closer than 500 feet but requires a conditional use authorization. The green zone is so constrained. I had a map butthere we go. Sfgovtv, the overheed the orange zone is there current green zone and the yellow ifia allow in all districts that allow some sort of commercial activity and trunk the buffer aroun schools to 600 feet which is state requirement rather than 1,000 feet one thing im not seeing on here is very much yellowen the west side. There is not a lot of yellow on the west side but most of the west side is residentially zoned. It restricts a lot of parcels in the neighborhood commercial districts. As you know the southeast neighborhoods are not going from industrial, we are losing pdr space and the loss is resulting into residential parts ofnew residential parts of San Francisco so how do we reconcile this and make sure there is equity in terms of access for folks on the west side of the city and so we dont have oversatch riization on Green Resources on the east side . I think some of that can be cleared up with clear sort of findings or guidelines in the mcd. In the dr application of what the commission should consider. Is there a overconcentration in the neighborhood . What is a appropriate concentration . Another way to do that is clustering issue to prohibit mcds to locating more than 500 feet of another one. Addressing it that way. Now the commission doesnt have guidelines whether to take a disregzary review and deny permit so it is based on neighborhood opposition or support and staff recommendation. So, i know you are a staff person and Planning Commission heard this item and probably hear another proposal later this month for proposal of mcd and you are finding you voolot of neighborhoods that are in opposition to aspiring entrepreneurs to opening new dispensries in the neighborhoods. How do we balance that . You can have super informed neighbors or super uninformed neighbors. Either way it doesnt seem like it is a very fair process for those that are entrepreneur in spirit and looking to open mcds to for my opinion wage war against a neighborhood. For example, visitation valley there are many mcds attempted to be opened and constituents have organized quite well to prevent this from happening. I know you have recommendations, but maybe you will present them in later on the presentation, i dont know. If they are, my apology. You can let me know and address them later in the presentation but how do we neutralize this so the process is more fair and even kiel for all the parties interested . One of the biggest concerns we learned through the report from march 2014 is clustering and impact on the neighborhoods. One of the recommendations to deal with that is expand the green zone and provide anticlustering things so they dont cluster in particular neighborhoods. When planners look at the code they look at what is within the code. If there is nothing in the application to give direction on that they differ to probably approval unless they find a reason not to. So the expansion the green zone does that include the west side or . Yes, it includes the west side. The map probably isnt the most legible, but the orange is existing and yellow expanded. The only way to expand the green zone because there are so few commercial districts is shrink the 1,000 foot buffer to 600 feet or between that. The second steps is modify certain definition tooz address the state licenses classifications so going back to state law and what is changing. The state [inaudible] cultivation license. The agricultural use urban, neighborhood and green house are currently silent on growing cannabis. They should be amind today prohibit or permit certain new license types. Neighborhood agriculture is permitted in every Zoning District in the city including residential. This definition allows to a half acre of cull evaluation. We have 30 cultivation sites in the city. Which are located in pdr and [inaudible] this is like the most appropriate place for them, however it is prudent to acknowledge in the planning code rather than leaving it up to inturperation. The new state laws removes the requirement for mcds. Mcd is considered institutional use because oof non profit status so they are [inaudible] should we have two separate use definitions, one for medical and one for adult cannabis . Should we continue to regulate deliveryonal businesses the same brick and mortar mcd . The city should look at the 3 existing manufacturing use definition. Lith, manufacturing and food, fiber and manufacturing process one and two to permit or prohibited the manufacturer of cannabis. These peer the logical use categories that occur for cannabis products, but there are several differences in the license types and not all are appropriate. That concludes my portion of the presentation and turn it over to dan lowery and bill strom from dbi. Thank you. Good afternoon. Department of building inspection, article 33, San Francisco medical cannabis act. Referral to other departments. Receiving a permit application, and permit application fee the director shall refer to city Planning Department, department of building inspection, mayor office of disability and Fire Department. Section 3307, issuance of medical cannabis dispensry permit. Applications with provisional permits secure a certificate of final completion. The director shall issue the app cant. Operating requirements for medical cannabis dispensry [inaudible] prior to submission of the buildsic permit the applicant shall submit the application to Mayors Office of disability. Over here you can see examples of the routing of some of the permits that is approved through the building inspection process. It shows where it went through city planning, building and mechanical. It is routed to puc, dpw. Development fee, Mayors Office of disabilitythis shows all the routing the permits have 5ur8d already gown gone through and been obtained. The colorado [inaudible] for the dispensaries they call it [inaudible] that is all we have here. The mercantile. Smoking treatment rooms are [inaudible] growth facilities are f 1 occupancy and that is moderate hazard. Marijuana Oil Extraction operations is f 1. Marijuana infused product, kitchens and bakeries. F 1. Packages and processes is h 3. Combustable hazards. 2012 Building Code lists products and tobacco as a example of uses to classify as f 1 occupancy and closely match the function in the marijuana growth facilities. Marijuana Oil Extraction operations and infused kitchens and bakeries. Colorado state also adopted the international Building Code of [inaudible] the Washington StateBuilding Code. The Washington StateBuilding CodeCouncil Adopted regulations categoryed marijuana facilities as f 1. The state Building Code council took action june 20, [inaudible] the state Building Code council updated emergency rules and incorporate changes to chapter 1 permit squz processes, extraction facilities june 10, 2016. Similar to california, Washington State also adopted the ivc as a model. Thank you. Okay. I have two concluding slides but i am going to since we have the powerpoint working to scroll to the first map. This was the map of all the dispensries within San Francisco and going the next mep shows the distribution throughout the neighborhoods. We can see there is 4 or 5 neighborhoods that have the majority of the medical cannabis dispensry and a couple others that have one or two. The density ranges from 9 to most of the gray area where they dont exist. Just to summarize, what the current law looks like and what the new state laws look like. Right now in San Francisco we issue one permit only for retail distribution. The new state law allows for 17 new types of licenses. This includes cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and transportation. Right now the organizational model of the dispensry is non profit and now laws allow for profit. The Business Ownership type is collective or collaborative model and this will be phased out in the next year or two. The local jurisdiction still has a lot of land use. Now our current law is a,000 feet from schools. The new law stipulates 600 feet from schools but can make it more stringent and keep with the thousand feet. Now we have no taxation on medical cannabis and the new law gives the city the opportunity to impose taxation on cultivation, production and dispensing. I believe the state law there is a pendsing legislation about tax and coltivation at a state level. Here are the key decision points for the city to make. Presumably that is subject to prop 218 and requires 2 3 vote or simple majority if legislatures on the ballot . I apologize i dont know the answer. I know it is just on cultivation and think it is 9. 20 a ounce. The key decision points for San Francisco right now are whether we want to allow or prohibit cultivation. Whether to allow or prohibit delivery. Within the state law it stipulates delivery must be connect today a cannabis dispensry so caents have Third Party Delivery businesses it is connect today the dispensry. We have a option to low or pr hibit manufacturing. Aaron talks about the zoning to increase or decrease the green zone. We want to think of equity as mu rep. Oakland passed a ordinance. They passed a ordnance stating cannabis law