Transcripts For SFGTV Aging Adult Services Commission 9215

presidio panthers how about one large cheer for the mayor and benny hoff how about a large cheer (clapping.) so i'm going to turn it over to principal, etc. no who will finish off the program. >> thank you all so students before we go back salesforce is lana book for all students starting with you so teachers as we go back to the class we'll start with the front and salesforce volunteers will be handing all the students a book to start reading so thank you ery much salesforce for that >> >> this is the regular meeting of the small business commission. it monday august 24, 2015. and the time is 2:03 p.m.. the meeting is being televised live and the small business commission thanks the media service and sf gov tv staff. electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. speakers are limited to 3 minutes. please complete a speaker card. please give me your speaker card prior to speaking. additionally there are sign up list at the table for those who would like to be added to the mailing list. commissioner steven adams, dooley, monetta white, paul tour sarkissian, commissioner irene riley. >> general public comment allows members of the public to comment generally on the matter of commission's purview and not on today's agenda and agenda items for future consideration. >> do we have any members of the general public today that would like to comment on any matters that are not on the agenda? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we should give a shout out to all of our tv viewers. we've been getting fan mail all month and we want to let them know that we love them. >> we have no competition with land use. >> we are in an open time slot today. so for people out there watching us. >> let's move on. item no. 3 is approval of the august 10, 2015, regular meeting minutes. do we have a motion? >> i motion to approve. >> second. >> i second. >> commissioner adams made a motion, commissioner riley seconded. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? item no. 4. discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on bos file no. 150270 public works code contractor parking plan. this ordinance amends the public works code to require a contractor parking plan as a condition precedent for approval of excavation permits for major work that is 30 conservative calendar days or longer and specified temporary street space occupancy permits for construction work. i have a presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is jess montejano. as i have sure we know the construction is booming here in san francisco and the shear amount of construction in our corridor is causing quality of life impacts for residents in our neighborhood and our small businesses and our commercial corridor. the genesis of this legislation came from constituents in our district. district 2 had the highest number of residential construction and parking permits in the city. especially owners along chess nut and union as well. we know the scarce amount of parking especially for parking that is vacant for hours and days at a time. we wanted to come up with a proposal to remedy some of the problems. we definitely feel the city can be more proactive to let the residents know about the impacts to residents and we can do better with that. we teamed up with her initially when we first introduced this legislation back in march and have added supervisors wiener and breed and kim to the legislation as well. we have support to make it through the board. as brian was stating this amended the construction for the parking plan for on street space for parking permits issued by the department of public works and also includes new fees to really help with the enforcement of this plan to ensure that our contractors in our neighborhood are following the permits that were stated in the plans that are going to be submitted to the city. the components of this structure parking plan the contractor will now permit includes the following: the number of parking permits and the average number of employees at the site. the timeline and phasing of the project and the requirement of the contractor to notify the department of any unexpected changes. it also requires the contractor to use carpooling or park side such as parking garages instead of taking up valuable street parking. there is also a component in the plan that mandates the contractor come up with a proposal for how they will make on street parking available to the general public and to business owners by 4:00 p.m. each day if that space is going to be used after that time. when we are working with supervisor christian and cohen we want to focus outside of our traditional from our office which is in a residential neighborhood and they want to expand it to encompass more of business commercial as well and we had an amendment issued by the land use committee that includes pdr districts and citywide. that was one of the concerns of the commission. we are open to hearing additional construction that should be included as well. additionally the last component of the plan gives dpw some flexibility to request any additional information that they find important to have as part of the construction parking plan that the contractors will be submitting. additionally all of this information is made publically available to dpw so any resident or any owner of any part of the city can see the parking plan and see how this is impacting their neighborhood. we believe this is a straight forward proposal. we work close with sf mta and contractors on this proposal and we have the majority in support and some of the contractors aren't too happy about the fee increases but before the legislation we did a budget analyst report that shows all the permit fees per capita with other cities are relatively low so they can stand to be increased a little bit. we understand what's going on right now but most of the times those contractors pass through the additional permit increases to the customer or the client they are working with on behalf and we believe them to be minimal. the legislation today is supported by all the departments and i understand on friday there were some concerns and i had a chance to review this today since we were on recess. i will be happy to walk through any of those questions and answer any concerns that you may have. all right. thank you very much. >> commissioner, adams? >> first off i want to thank supervisor farrell and cohen for this piece of legislation. this is awesome. this is something in my opinion long over due especially with all the construction going on and i appreciate that you are looking at commercial districts as well as residential because that's where a big part of the problem is right now. i was in the valley a couple weeks ago and they had a few signs up there but no construction going on. my question is what department is going to approve this plan? >> the department of public works. right now most contractors how i understand the process they will go to sf mta. they will come up with a proposal and sf mta and manages and overseas that process. we are primarily working with those two departments to come up with the proposal and how it can be implemented correctly. i think the biggest thing for dpw was to have permanent funding for enforcement and limitation. i think we all believe that the success of the legislation would come with the enforcement and the additional fees will help with that. >> do you know if there is a minimum amount of parking spaces they can take? >> right now our requisite, one parking space for 30 days. if there is more than one, they will have to do that as well. we didn't want to necessarily slow you know some projects and especially good projects that need to happen in our neighborhood, but at the same time we needed to institute some sort of balance for the residents. >> here is an idea too and i was thinking about this a couple weeks ago. do you have these school playgrounds that they use for parking in the summer time when a lot of this stuff is going on. we can get something in there and maybe it would be a win win for the schools. use those as a parking spot instead of taking up street parking. >> yeah, i think that's a fine idea. when we were crafting this legislation, we had to be really mindful in what was in our jurisdiction. obviously school parking is a great idea. it would be in the jurisdiction. school district and what they choose to do there. >> what will be added that we plan to introduce at the board is another requirement that states that a contractor has to use the on-site garage parking before they take on an on street parking space. especially in our district we saw folks with park is available on their garage parking and using parking in front. that didn't make sense. >> commissioner dooley? >> i wanted to ask about it mentions having them say how many employees they have. it's certainly been my experience in north beach, pretty much everybody wants to have their own truck there all the time so they can run out and get their tools. is there someway of limiting maximum amount of street spaces. >> i believe they can take more than 60 on street parking permits. that's the threshold we have now. at the same time we hear clearly from residents and business owners that the city needs to be more proactive in planning and letting citizens know pro actively what's happening in their neighborhood and no process and no notification exist. we think this is a really helpful first step into providing that plan outside of our traditional noticing requirements that we have on the books now. >> is there some kind of incentive that encourage carpooling or truck pooling amongst these folks so not every single person working on the site has to bring their own vehicle. >> yes, one of the components we have on the plan is the contractor has to submit to dpw whether they have carpooling options. so that's a requirement of the current parking plan we are working on now. i would add some gray area here. there were some difficulties working with the city attorney in what we could restrict versus what we couldn't restrict. what this is is our best attempt to provide the parameters and pro activity for the contractors about what is happening in their neighborhood. >> i also have a question about if they aren't using a space from 4:00 on, i find that a lot of the spaces aren't being used at all during the day. those are 10-4:00 p.m. our prime business hours where those spaces could be really used. i know a lot of residential space the sign says if no construction is started by noon, i would urge you to roll that back to an earlier hour. >> i think that's something that the cosponsors would be happy to look at. we were trying to find that balance and from the residents especially their coming home after work, the traditional 4:00 hour. they can understand in the morning construction but for the proposal that makes sense. >> the last question. i have a pile of notes. >> it's what we are here for. >> the storage issue. i know when they went to a site, they stored large pipes for weeks at a time taking on an entire block of parking. so it didn't seem clearly that it was not going to happen. that could still happen is kind of how i saw it, but that is a real problem if they do that. >> i'm looking back here. it looks like on section 4.20, section 8 there. one of the components of the parking plan is how the contractor, excuse me, it's no. 7. sorry. i was wrong. it's no. 8. it requires that they at least submit as part of their plan as to the material of the storage and pipes and construction materials are going to be used as permitted parking spaces. that is identified in the plan. what i will do before this makes it to the board on tuesday, dpa drafted up one page about the project and parking plan. i will be sure you see it to be sure there isn't anything on there. >> i understand when they put materials in the parking space and they are going to be using them soon. my experience has been that they are not using them soon. they are just sitting there for a month or two and eventually they are going to be used. so i would like to see some kind of time limit for how long they can use it for storage. >> that's what we are looking at and providing this plan making it available to residents and business owners on the website, having a point of contact, i think with additional fees that are going to help with enforcement and this kind of pro activity and contract the business owners will have because the residents and business owners know their own neighborhood. >> thank you for bringing this forward. it is really necessary and really happy to see something move. >> yeah, of course i appreciate that. >> commissioner ortiz cartagena? >> thank you. this is way over due. the only question, did you reach out to the parking sector companies and explore any ideas? >> i know they have with the parking companies. are you talking about a specific kind? >> just to get their expertise? >> yes. one of the things, or one of the components of the parking plan which is the contractor evaluating whether they can use kind of off street garage parking. all of those sites and majority are own by sf mta and we can host construction materials or permit out those spaces instead of the on street parking spaces as well. >> okay. >> director? >> through the president, so a quick question as i couldn't really, i wasn't clear in reading this. is this being applied to private contractors or is this parking plan also being applied to city like when we do excavation for water pipes? >> definitely all of the above. anyone that received an occupancy permit, they are all going to have to submit this construction parking plan as a prerequisite for receiving that permit. >> one more question. >> 5 days notice is pretty short. we need to have more like 2 weeks so if it's going to have a major impact on a commercial district, people can figure out what to do. it's got to be at least 2 weeks. >> that -- does that seem like the overwhelming thought from the commission? >> i would prefer 30 days. the most as possible. >> i think we take this to heart. we understand one of the most important things in business is certainty and knowing what's going to happen on your storefront and corridor. we'll definitely run that to ground. i have to better understand from dpw and the timeline they have in giving out these projects. i can imagine maybe the construction project in district 2, someone just wanted to get it and have a contract maybe tomorrow. with other projects, i'm sure it takes long to mapping out what the project is going to look at but we can have more flexibility on that. i think it would be non-substantive. so it won't cause any delay. >> i would be surprise anything that impacts parking gets a permit with lead time with more than a couple of days. the contractor might say i mailed them out 5 days in advance and if it happens on a monday, we don't see that for a couple days later and you only find out because the parking spots are gone. we got noticed by cal trans 2 days after the construction occurred saturday and sunday night. all the residents were pissed off. they said we noticed everybody per the legal statute. so there was a case where it got hung up in the mail and the government transaction didn't happen and none of us got notice. i don't think 5 days is enough to allow for what happens from the time of leaves the person that's putting the stamps on it to get it to the person who should get it. >> i think you are exactly right and that's a reasonable request. john maloney the our city attorney on that request and those that are supporting this legislation as well. i would just add to that i will be break -- back in front of you in about a month or so. so it isn't their standard mailing anymore. so we'll be able to get it out to the business owners through e-mail. >> it tends to be going out to the landlord. most of us never see what the landlord gets because we are all tennants, commercial tennants but all residential tennants. but the noticing needs to go directly to the tennants as well as the landlord. and the language in this particular item keeps saying neighborhood. neighborhood tends to ring residential. we have so many mixed use corridors here that it should specifically include neighborhood and i think we have some recommended language here about how to call it commercial tennants. neighborhoods, commercial corridors and/or business districts right now. we can recommend some wording to you. >> yeah. i got at the mail from regina. we are happy to include that. that makes sense and that is definitely our intent. what we heard from small business owners is we need to be notified. >> commissioner sarkissian? >> i would like to join my colleagues this congratulating you. >> thank you. >> just coming back to the tenant issue, i believe that the ground and second floor should be included. >> okay. that's not a problem. thank you. >> commissioners, any other comments? commissioner riley? >> hi, when you determine to noticed the neighborhood, where do you get the information. commissioner dwight just said that usually the notice sent to the landlord? >> yes. >> is it possible to get the information of all the tennants? >> yes, i believe so. that was our intent. we are happy to work with the director and our city attorney to match that intent and all the tennants that are affected. i believe it's 300 feet in our legislation. we were sensitive to some of the cost included because of the permit fees included as well. that's the intent. we want our neighbors and business owners to know what's going on. that's the plan where we are going to have a contact person and they are always available and they will have a point of reference to go online to check on what's happening in their neighborhood. >> they get planning. planning has to notify owners and tennants of projects now. so when you get your notification in the mail, it says to current occupant. it doesn't even say the landlord's name. it's whoever is living in that unit. that's how they notify you. >> that's good. >> commissioners, anymore comments or questions before public comment? okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, do you have any other comments or questions? jess, thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your support. >> director? >> well, i think timing wise can you just sort of review with us since we had some discussion about possible amendment what timing wise is. this is agendaized as an action item. you might want to take action on it with a proposed recommendation. >> okay. >> do we want to simply make a motion, read out the recommendations? >> yes. >> okay. >> and real quick to provide that quick timeline. it got out of land use at the last land use on july 27th. it will be on board agenda for the 8, but we have a couple weeks between now to come up with what should be simple fixes to match the needs and desires of the commission. >> okay. would someone like to make a motion? >> i would like to make a motion on this piece of legislation and i would like to hear what amendments we would like to add to it. >> we have a list of them. >> yes. >> do we need to read them into the record or can we just enter them into the record. there are seven recommendations. >> there are seven recommendations and the only one who hasn't had enough discussion, but making the recommendation is i think recommendation no. 1, just making sure that the parking plan. the alternative parking locations definitely apply to -- when commissioner dooley talks about the number of employees that they are also making sure they are presenting their parking plan where their employees are going to be parking. >> yes. but we could work through the seven recommendations that we have presented to the supervisors office. i just bulleted them out in your binder, but those are the specific recommendations. >> and storage to keep an eye on that. >> they had that in their no. 8, the storage. >> yes, the timeframe of the storage and commissioner dooley you also, i don't know how much, if this needs to be in the legislation. you said noon? >> it should be noon instead of 4 p.m.. :00 p.m.. >> you might want to note in commercial districts if it makes it easier. >> i think there is some wiggle room because with the residential construction we are seeing but i think dpw has a policy in place and i will come back to double confirm with their team that any contractor can put this upon themselves if that parking is going to be used for 2 days put up a sign and let them know if that parking will be available to the public. >> we would like to do that. >> right. >> all right. i think easily enough commissioners because we have the seven recommendations that were presented to the supervisors office pretty much specifically address them. >> so i can make the motion that i would like to make a motion to approve this legislation with our seven recommendations and we can just attach these seven to the legislation. perfect. >> great. do we have a second? >> i second it. roll call? city clerk: commissioner adams, yes, commissioner dooley, yes, commissioner dwight? yes, cartagena, yes, riley, yes. >> success. >> thank you for your outreach. i know you spoke to several merchant groups. this is a great piece of legislation and i want to thank you again for your outreach too. you heard from a lot of people on this. >> yes. it's a big issue citywide. >> thank you very much for your support and i will see you in about a month with our neighborhood notification notice. we are happy about that. >> thank you. >> all right. onto our next celebrity presentation. item no. 5, discussion and possible action to make a final recommendation on file no. 150790 planning code establishing a new citywide transportation sustainability fee. we have adam varat. >> good afternoon. it's great to come back. speaking of good pieces of legislation. as you know we came before you a couple weeks ago and you gave us food -- feedback and we have information for you. i believe this document was distributed to you all and i'm just going over that quickly. it's just to read a couple of simple pages. the first page is questions raised by the commission, second page a few keypoints and the last one is comparison that breaks the text down into a more readable form so you can see some of the changes we are proposing. i will start this and run through it quickly and happy to answer any questions you may have. one of the questions that came up were about the new construction trigger proposed to the tsf and how that would apply to pop up retail which generally these days may include shipping containers. a couple examples that came up were proxy and the yard. i mentioned the yard and mission bay project that is temporary and the impact fees because mission bay has their own set of rules in this situation, but proxy was treated like a permanent use and whatever fees were applicable at that time. i wanted to go over that. in terms of shipping containers you can get them in various sizes. the largest is 8 x 40. theoretically you can get two full large size shipping containers on the lot and that would be less than 800 feet before you trigger that fee. also reminder that tsf like the tdf is a one time fee when the new use is being created and that basically lives as a credit on that site. if you change the use in the future to an even more intensive use or if you demolish and rebuild or replace, you do get credit for that. something else that is interesting about small pop ups is generally speaking they may have this container space or some other type of small modular space but they typically use a lot of outdoor space as a primary area for seating and that space does not count towards the fee. just as if you have a restaurant, that area is not counted towards the fee because the fee is calculated using the area which measures from the exterior walls. any space outside is not covered by this and currently on tdf or any of our impact fees because they are all calculated through the floor area. another question that came up is where does the 5,000 square footage. it outlined the proposal there for the change of use to take down 800 but create a small business policy credit along with the parking credit and keep that 3,000 square foot threshold for that credit and at that time there was some conversation with the small business community about whether or not 3 thousand was too small and raised to 5 thousand and there are numerous place in the planning code. to give you most of our commercial parking controls and areas where we require parking still are not triggered until the use is 5,000 square feet. in the downtown district in the ground floorless than 5,000 square feet. they are exempt from fees and far's to add how much you can build on the site. in typical districts, it's up to two floors and some allow up to three which is about 5,000 square feet maximum on a typical lot. similarly tying back to the rg3,000 square feet number. that these businesses are a finer grain. the vast majority is 3,000. again, we also have a conditional use permit authorization required for a certain size. depending on the district you are in, it could be 5,000 or 10,000. in china town similarly the lots are restricted to 5,000 and we have a conditional use requirement in grocery stores if they are over 5,000 feet. that's kind of a proxy for a small business. obviously a small business can be measured in different ways if it's area, number of employees, establishment and so on. in terms of the fee, the area is the easiest to use for us. there are questions about other businesses. as an example i quickly through in some existing businesses. i won't go over that. you can look at that at your leisure. those numbers are approximate. onto page two, just a couple of key points which we touched on last time which is the changes we are proposing are basically benefits to small business with the tdif now and the existing area plans. the only thing changing in the other direction is the fees girting higher -- getting higher and we are bringing the residential in that category which is not today. other than that, every change we have made is a positive. if that means the fee will apply lessor there is much more likelihood for the credit for the use that was there. if you go to the last page at the table that just outlines that point which is if you look at the different factors of impact fees. we have three columns here. one for the area plans, one for tidf or tsf. as we talked about the number of land use categories which is an important issue in our area plans is 3 and now it's 9. down to 3. tids is unique in that and we wanted to remove them. small business is not in our areas. and limit tdif in the policy credit pool. that limitation would be taken away and it would be a permit limitation. and in our area plans all new construction trigger the fee except for tdip now to 800 square feet. tidf and tsf 800. small business and adding the dwelling unit requirements. we just wanted to go over that information with you and give you chance to ask any other questions or comments you like and we are available for any questions you may have. >> commissioner adams? >> thank you very much for this. this really cleared it up for me. i very much appreciate the impact fee comparison. i like this. you did a great job on this. >> thank you. >> it's definitely something i can support. how is the prime rib at $360 square feet. >> that's a lot of prime rib. >> that's big. >> about the size of a bag factory it turns out. >> director? >> so, commissioners, i just want to provide you with a little bit of information. i had a conversation around 1:00 with lisa pagan and oed and doesn't have the ability to oh pine on it. some feedback that ben hoot an, the industry person. one of the feedback from ben is that with the nexus study takes a look at retail and retail at mostly daytime travel and the nighttime industry, you can look at it. there is a high number of individuals using it, but also there is less public transportation available at that time. so from the nighttime industry perspective, paying into the fee, if they are over 5,000 square feet for an entertainment establishment they are paying a fee where they are not getting service much return. so in terms of the dealing with the consideration of if you are going to consider putting forward in a final recommendation whether the consideration for the small business exemption should be 5,000 square feet. that was one particular feedback. then, the other was that with the 800 square feet for new development if retaining the 5,000 square feet is what is going to be retained especially looking at neighborhood commercial development for mixed use building that we have some pretty sizable ones in hayes valley but if you are planning to do one in these respects, could there be consideration for neighborhood commercial new development where it's again sort of working with something simple, a flat 5,000 square feet small business exemption for commercial space, new development, non-new development. those are put forward for some potential ideas to give consideration to. it's not to say that's officially where oewe is, but to give that some thought. >> right. well, i think as we discussed last time, the one beneficial caveat is that it's a change of usage issue. the limit comes into effect if it's the change of use. if it's the same, it doesn't affect it. anyway, we just put it out there. any other questions or comments? >> then, if you don't mind. can you briefly go over how office space works in the downtown and opportunity to -- the high rises? >> in terms of fees? >> yes. >> large office projects, let's say anything over 50,000 square feet, whether it's downtown or anywhere, there are certain fees that are going to apply. obviously tdf is going to apply. you get into the job housing linkage fee which is triggered at 25,000 square feet. and the 50,000 square feet with a child care fee if not provided. if you are downtown, there is a downtown open space fee as well. if you are not downtown, if you are in eastern neighborhood in soma, doing this kind of project, you would be subject to the eastern neighborhood impact fee. it depends on where you are exactly. there are various fees that those are subject to. >> is that just for new development. let's say you go into business and into a new building and you take 5,000 square feet and you grow and go to the next floor and the next floor and often the tenant improvement, discussions in tenant improvements are sometimes done by the property manager if they are expanding? >> if it's just tenant to tenant there is no change of use. there is no new construction triggered. if you have a building, if you are in soma, but you are near downtown, on second or third street corridor and you have a warehouse that you want to convert to office. that would still apply. >> i think where the sum of this question comes from is whether there are exemption that are similar to the other exemption that were made for certain high tech companies moving into central market area and whether this just is a part of a bundle of fees and thing that would be negotiated, but in fact most of those developments were not change of use, probably. so this particular fee would not apply. >> it depends. so, if you are referring to the tax incentives that were created in the market, >> those are different. >> right. >> if you have a project that have or going through the process of receiving a development agreement and that is a separate process that takes the project away from the codes and negotiated with the city. obviously from a negotiating perspective, the city uses what is required. it's not completely thrown out. but that's a much higher bar. they are doing a development agreement while what happens more often now is not something that happens more often. it's kind of a separate beast that we put in the code. >> okay. commissioners, any other questions or comments? >> adam from the planning department. i want to clarify the point with lisa and i'm happy to follow up. one thing to red -- remember about this fee is it goes to capital improvement and not operating improvement. the improvement for the bus system can help with the speed of the bus service and the program about when it runs. this fee in particular as the impact fees are tied to the built capital improvement. >> okay. so we can feel better about paying. great, any other comments? okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> do we have require any action? >> well, i think commissioners, from your recommendations at the last meeting and the action that you took you wanted to get more information in terms of whether 5,000 exemption was satisfactory. if you wanted to consider making a recommendation for more as a policy decision for you in terms of whether you received enough information to finalize that decision and then also you wanted a little bit more clarity around the 800 square foot and the impact. so i haven't heard much conversation in relationship to that. again, home of those kinds of projects are going to happen and so it's an evaluation for you in terms of that a little bit of money going into sf mta's budget, or what that may mean for those small businesses and just another kind of as we often hear about stream lining and various things on that end. >> as a practical matter, it seems to me there is a fair amount of inertia around coalescing around this 5,000 feet even if there are urging of more or less. i would imagine that it would be somewhat difficult to change that inertia at this point. also we would want to consider where the diagram overlaps. how many things are really going to be over 5,000 square feet for small businesses. of those how many will be triggered and used. i feel that ultimately over those intersections of things there are very small projects. to change the inertia behind this for an unspecified but likely small population of projects is highly unlikely. so we can of course make a recommends if we want, but i think any recommends other than 5,000 carries it's own arbitrary nature and all we are doing is advocating for more. the question is where do you draw the line. adam has been very thorough in providing something we all know and love and that their indeed there is one kind of case here where or one example that a company is larger than 5,000. certainly it bears witness to the idea that they are less than 5,000 feet. it's where to pick your battle. >> right. >> where is the reasonableness plays in. commissioner adams? >> i agree with everything you just said. and i got to thank you guys. when i read these comparisons, you answered my questions and i'm more than happy to support this piece of legislation. so i would make a motion to go ahead and approve this. >> just want to throw out one last thing and reflecting on elisa's the conversation. in terms of the 8,000 square feet, any variability in terms of permanent and non-permit structure. throwing it out there before be get to finalize and the policy for you for consideration. >> more from our i would say neighborhood economic development in trying to activate different spaces. so, and again, the space that proxy is on, that is city owned and eventually the city to be building on it. but when that will be. that space is not intended to be permanently used as a space as it is now. >> great. are these activations, oftentimes these activations involve the city. is there a case where an activation like that would be subject to a negotiated situation not like a very large construction project? >> no. not really. ultimately the planning code treads everything from a land use perspective as permanent except for those things that can be permitted as a temporary use. that is very limited. such as christmas tre >> there is nothing to pass with taking applications now should the ballot pass. if the ballot does pass, the application process will have to be amended because historical preservation will be engaged in part of that process. so there is interest from the supervisor's office. they have been contacting us in terms of wanting to begin to do their nominations. so i would like to start out with the process of working with the nominees that each supervisor has. i'm not really opening it up just yet for allowing the individual businesses to initiate an application that would be forwarded, but i would like to have you give some consideration and i will have follow up conversations with epa of you over the next week. if we do start taking these applications starting september, last part of september, that means we can officially start hearing it the october meetings. is your preference to schedule these items to be heard at one particular meeting in a month or to hear you know at each meeting. >> why don't we see how they roll -- in? >> okay. >> i have no idea. i have some idea, but no stated ideas how fast it's going to happen. >> i think in moving in 2013, where am i? sorry. i am somewhere else. 2016 then we will take a look at, i will work with building in terms of meeting time availability and what that means if we need to have an additional meeting. i don't think this is a meeting that needs to be televised. so that will open up our ability to have more flexible dates available. so if we have it in room, i think 412? what's the one? 408. >> what will happen at a meeting where we review. these will be legacy businesses that have already passed through the application. correct? presumably they have checked all the boxes on the application. i believe we will see businesses that qualify under the rule. so the only thing that would happen here. we are not going to have a huge debate about anchor -- and bakery. i'm not clear what the discussion will be other than to say, that's very nice. i'm glad these people have applied and presuming there is no financial request which many of them will come without financial request, i believe. then i don't think there is going to be a lot of discussion. i would you are thely encourage us to acknowledge them at this meeting rather than not, why not. we are using this platform as an acknowledgment as it's great. you won the award. you applied and you are approved. what i would like to see is how many people applied, what are the complications, why wouldn't there be anything but acknowledgment and the brief discussion here. >> i have a question about the timeline rolling out when individual businesses can apply. you are saying only businesses that are recommended by supervisors will first be looked at. >> right now it's pure staffing. i mean, it's just having being able to have some control of the floodgate at the staffing level so that we are working. there needs to be review, discussion time with the businesses that are nominated by the supervisor or the mayor in terms of what's in the application. you know are the applications complete. so and then assembling and getting the packets ready in time for you to review and agendaized and noticed. so really right now it's really just trying to make sure that there are some realistic controls over what we are able to handle and then >> i also would expect, if history is any indication, supervisors are not going to spend a huge amount of time finding the nominations themselves. they are going to be to those i heard about and other businesses and here is the recommendation. because supervisors are busy. they are working on limitation. to direct their limited staff to say, hey, go find me some legacy businesses. it's not going to work that way. there are others who may have their list already but i think the supervisors may respond to suggestions or interested parties. i think we don't need to unduly prepare for what we do not know what's going to happen. i would recommend that we see what happens initially and we can always react accordingly. >> i do think there is a lot of interest out there in terms of self initiation and until we have staff dedicated to this program. i want to make sure that staff is handling what is being nominated right now by the supervisors and not working and handling and facilitating the legislation that is not nominated by the supervisors until we have the adequate staff. >> requesting acknowledgment of the legacy businesses other than requesting financial support for a business that is going out of business. i think it's mostly people requesting acknowledgment. it's a restaurant in business for 25 years, a cleaning company in business for 25 years. at the end of the day we should have a very low bar for acknowledging these businesses that have been in business for 25 years or more. who is to say the restaurant or cleaning business or brewery is more elegant or more worthy of being an elegant business wechl should stick to very objective thing when it comes to acknowledging those businesses because it is nothing but goodness to be bundled up to say this is a great business that's been around for a long time. the businesses that are in trouble and the business for the legislation. this legislation has two prongs, how do we acknowledge businesses that have been around for a long time. that's a good market for the city. the other one is how do we assist businesses who are in dire straits. i think we've all acknowledged the funding available under this program is pretty limited when it comes to being in dire straits. so, those are going to be the exceptions and those are going to be the things that require perhaps more conversation. i just don't have any sense whatsoever to know how that's going to break out. i don't think we are going to have a land rush of people going, finally, i'm going to get some financial business. i would be completely wrong but if you are in that condition, you need a lot more than what this offers. >> right. well, currently there is no financial assistance. so that is not there until -- >> right. that's the legislation. >> right. so any application that comes through right now is subject to what is currently written, in law, in place. and what's the legislation and not the ballot measure. it would be up to the board of supervisors in making the nomination. it's up to them to give the consideration in terms of who and how they nominate and should that fund be there in the future, the prioritization of who they are nominating in relation to that as well. because even if a business does apply through our office before the board of supervisors or the mayor nominates, that application gets to the supervisor or the mayor. because they have to be nominated. but again, it's a work flow issue even though we are not asking a lot of them but it's still information. it's enough information to be tracking legislation and dealing with that and processing it and getting it ready for you. i just wanted to let you know i'm going to be very mindful as we start to learn this process. what's going to be submitted in our applications, what's going to be involved with it to have a little bit of control right now until we have a staff person to really facilitate the program. >> that's fine. if there is anyway we can assist with that, maybe that can help as well in terms of reviewing the applications. i think the ner term incentive for any supervisor is to celebrate how many legacy businesses they have in their district and to pat themselves and their businesses and those companies on the back for being part of san francisco's legacy. it will clearly not be until after november election whether there is any movement trying to determine whether any of these businesses qualify and to what degree that would be helpful to them. so, again, i think the initial vetting is going to be very straight forward. i think that the candidates are probably going to be companies that are well-known to us and it's largely a pr sort of activity. >> i'm just a little concerned. i understand where we are coming from. i agree we need to see our rolls out. politics from what they are, there might be someone in a given district that may not be necessarily nominated by their supervisor. i would like to see in the future that a business could apply on their own. >> there is nothing in the legislation that passed or in the ballot measure that says that the supervisor who nominates, they can only nominate businesses from their district. it's the high probability because they have those relationships, but nothing precludes another supervisor from nominating a business that is not in their district. >> does the rule allow only the supervisor and the mayor to make nominations or can the business person make the nomination? >> the law states that it's just the mayor and board of supervisors who can nominate. there is no jurisdictional limitations in terms of the supervisor. >> could it be as a potential not maybe won't happen. but i would not like to see any deserving business not nominated or put forward by their supervisor. >> i would have to think if the business wanted to be nominated and appealed to the supervisor for being nominated. let's say an article in the chronicle about it. they can appeal to us. i'm in small business. i have literally been there and they will not nominate me. i think i meet all the criteria. then we would advocate on their behalf. >> it's not uncommon for businesses especially ietsz -- either if there is a cultural distinction about the business, other elements that they might have with a supervisor over their district supervisor for other reasons. the legislation didn't spell out anything precluding and i hear what your concern is and i think that -- and the supervisors did say in our meetings with them that they would also like to they don't necessarily want to be in the position of only doing the nomination. that if businesses apply they would like to receive those applications and then decide. so, but an application, a business that might submit an application that hasn't first been nominated by the mayor or board of supervisors will not come before you. >> it has to come from the mayor's office or the board of supervisors. >> the nomination. it has to come first and whether they look at it or it goes other way around or inform us we want to name x business and the staff reeps -- reaches out to that business and have them submit the application. >> is there an opportunity where they can self nominate? >> not as it's currently written. but if they want to the nominated they can appeal to their supervisor. rather than having it here. we'll wait to see the first one. >> this is again why i'm saying i want to start off with some controls whether that business will call our office and we will have the conversation and one of the recommendations will be finding out do they have a relationship with the mayor or the board of supervisors to start off with, anyone of them and if they don't, working through the process, there can be organizations that they are associated with and have a relationship with. but clearly the nomination has to come from the mayor and or board of supervisors. when we have adequate staff, that's the kind of i think sort of kind of massaging and working with the businesses that will be able to do, but until that time. it will take up time. so i just want to have some controls. in the future, there is no reason why we cannot be, if a business says i heard about this program and want to be considered and we walk them through the process. >> i can imagine a few businesses that some might find objection. i can see that. i think maybe we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. okay, any other commissioner comments or suggestions? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. no action required. i don't believe. city clerk: which brings us to item no. 7. directors report. >> commissioners, i wanted to bring to you, your attention for the gross receipts to help advise the city and outreach for the business community around to the transition into the new gross receipts. there is going to be a follow up meeting on thursday to kind of talk about give libtd -- a little bit of a preview on where things are in terms of how it's going and the roll out and because in the law it does say that it's how the city is meeting it's revenue goals will affect sort of the percentages in materials of the payroll and the gross receipts. >> who is on that committee from us? >> okay. commissioner adams. okay. so a heads up on that. and beginning of september will be the official announcement of that we'll have a presentation for the commission. and then did want to bring to your attention that richard hall ran and learner. richard hall ran with the department of building inspection, they are on the commission. they have started to meet and i have been invited to meetings to discuss about how we are going to be working the outreach and working with businesses and the property owners and the appeals commission to get prepared for supervisor tang's legislation. so i think that's going to be exciting to be a part of. and i will be forwarding to you. there are several bills at the state level that i just became aware of last week. one is looking at doing a similar kind of tax credit and deduction that the federal government has at the state level. another is permanently implementing the dollar fee. it was sunset in 2018. we'll make that additional dollar fee that we charge. a permanent dollar fee. this will be great for us because it's helped fund our cast inspection program. so to help subsidize it. it hasn't passed yet. but we soon will be mandating the entry ways are dealt with. there are still other issues to be dealing with in terms of accessibility with not just the entry way that are equally as important to make sure the businesses are mitigating. there is still definitelily continuing e working with the subsidized section. i will leave it at that for my directors report unless there are any questions. >> no. >> item 8. president's report. item nine, we do not have a vice-president's report. item 106789 commissioner reports. >> i attended the -- negotiation with google business. they had about 300 people attend that event. it was very good. so that's all i have. google did a great small business presentation. so i want to give her a shout out as well. >> commissioners, any other items to report? >> item 11. new business. >> any new business? no. item 126789 do -- 12. do we have a motion for adjournment. >> i second. >> get ready, here it comes. [ gavel ] >> [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular hearing for wednesday august 19, 2015. i would like to remind the audience that the commission doesn't tolerate any disruption or out burst and please silent any mobile devices. commissioners i would like to take roll at this time. commissioner president wolfram. >> here. >> commissioner hyland. >> here. >> >> commissioner hasz. >> here. >> commissioner nicaragua. >> here. >> commissioner johns. >> here. >> commissioner matsuda. >> here. >> we will address the items on the agenda at this time for public comment and i have no speaker cards. >> does anyone (low audio). >> and directors announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. i have no report from the director this week but happy to address any questions or forward the questions to the director if you have them. >> seeing none commissioner we can move on [inaudible] (low audio). >> commissioners tim frye again. just one item to share with you. at the august 6 planning commission hearing the commission approved 5-2 the sky bridge on stevenson. as you may recall the permit was reviewed by this body several weeks ago as the sky bridge connects the san francisco merchandise market. the dissenting votes cited their concerns about removing activity and interaction of employees with the ground floor retail establishments that was their main concern not to support the sky bridge but like i said it did pass 5-2. that concludes my announcements unless you have any questions. thank you. >> seeing none commissioners we can move on to commission matters. item 3 president's report and announcements. >> i just want to report that i am very excited about our hearing today -- or the subject matters on the hearing and this is more of a work session. we don't have approval today but there are a number of things we have been talking about for a long time, interpretation, website, other things so excited to have them on the agenda but also disappointed to tell you that the website needed to be continued because our presenter is sick so we have to continue that item so sorry to tell you that. >> item 4 commissioners draft minutes of the historic preservation commission regular meeting for august 5, 2015. >> are there any comments from the commissioners on the minutes? seeing and hearing none we will take public comment. does anyone in the public wish to speak on the draft minutes of august 5? seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment. bring it back for a motion to approve. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for august 5, 2015. hasz. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner. >> yes. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. >> that passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that place you on item 5. commission comments and questions. >> any comments or questions? >> i'm sorry. >> do we have items for the september 2? i notice there was nothing. >> we are proposing to cancel that. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> we can move on. >> would you like to cancel that? >> oh yes. i think we will formally do that. >> do we need to make a motion? >>not necessarily. >> then i suggest that we cancel that hearing. >> very good. that is items proposed for continuance. only item 7 under your regular calendar, the update on the preservation website informational presentation is being proposed for continuance to september 16. >> does any member of the public wish to speak to the continuance? seeing and hearing none we will bring it back to the commission. motion to continue. >> i move the motion. >> second. >> thank you on the motion to continue item 7 to that date. (calling roll). >> so moved (low audio). places under the regular calendar for item 6 and the urban forestry council nomination process. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon commissioners. tim frye. i wanted to mention as president wolfram always mentioned that this item was scheduled at your request to get a better understanding of what the landmark designation process is for nominating a landmark tree within the city and county of san francisco so with they will turn it over to our representative from the urban forestry council. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is [inaudible]. i'm the coordinator for san francisco environment department. i am here to talk about the city's landmark tree program so i will provide some context for the program and then i'm going to go over the tree nomination evaluation process. so what are landmark trees? they're called heritage trees, historic trees, things like that. the thing they have in common they seek to preserve and protect trees that have a significant value or impact for the city that they're in. in san francisco landmark trees can be anywhere in the city as long as the tree is within the city and county of san francisco borders can be nominated for landmark tree status. san francisco does a case by case process and we have five criteria that we established to evaluate trees by. some other cities might have a blanket protection all trees of a certain size or species and combination for that. for us we look at each tree specifically and individually. i'm going to go over the criteria for you but i want to note before we get into them trees don't have to meet all of the criteria. in fact a tree might meet one criteria very well and be a successful landmark tree so for the first criteria rarity. we have a example of what i am talking about. this is a manzanita tree and we're not sure of the species and it's the last one that we have the owner is here today and may talk about it the tree was lands marked primarily because of the rarity. when we're looking at physical attributes we're considering is this true a beautiful specimen for its species like the mortan base fig on valencia street and we're considering is it mature? is it big? is it big for its species in san francisco, and is it in good condition? for environmental benefits we're looking at like this landmark black eye and provide habitat for birds, things like that. we're looking at are there a lot of other trees in the area? does it help control wind or erosion? is it visible from the public right of way? could it have impact on traffic speeds? and the historic associations which you might be interested in is -- we're looking at whether or not there is any relationship between the tree and any building or site or person that was important to san francisco or to history. a great example of these trees. these are trees in front of place where mary pleasant lived and called the mother of civil rights in the west and the trees are next to the house. the house is no longer there but the trees are and this is from the 1920's. cultural associations are the final criteria. we're looking at whether or not there's a lot of neighborhood appreciation for the tree in question. is the tree important to any ethnic groups? does it contribute to the neighborhood's character? that's a concern as well. these are examples of that and the palm trees in the [inaudible] avenue. these trees are a great example because they're an anchor for the community based non-profit with the gardenace initiative. so nominations can only come from a few sources. when they come from a property owner or a city department head that nomination is made by simply submitting a nomination form to the urban forestry council and that's something that i receive. when the board of supervisors, the planning commission or this commission nominates a tree that's initiated by passing a resolution in support of the tree. typically if the tree isn't a property owner nomination a member of the public, a neighbor, somebody who loves and knows the tree will fill out a nomination form and bring it your body, to the planning commission or the board of supervisors for make sure that the tree gets nominated. i should also note that many trees are nominated when they're under threat for removal but removal is not one of the criteria we consider when evaluating the trees, so if the tree is going to be removed it's not something we think about, but while we're talking about tree removal trees do get protection at different stages in the evaluation process to make sure they can make it through the entire process. if the tree is nominated by a city department director it's protected when there is a resolution passed supporting the nomination. if the board of supervisors supports the nomination once a supervisor does the resolution the tree is protected and for the planning commission and come commission if you pass a resolution to nominate a tree it's protected from that point for 250 days. there are additional triggers to increase the protection time. if the protection time would end -- if it makes it through the whole process and the board of supervisors passes the ordinance there is a buffer to make sure that the mayor has time to sign it because it's an ordinance and takes time so after that nomination is made the urban forestry council and urban forestry staff -- that's me will evaluate the tree. we use the same criteria in the nomination form. we also perform additional research so we're looking for references, photo data bases. this picture is of the ben croft library what i showed you earlier is in the middle there and we found that out during the evaluation of that tree. once we have the information we hold two public hearings, the first is at the landmark tree committee and will have one of three outcomes. they will support the tree, split and no recommendation or they don't think the tree is worthy. one of those will happen and they will make that recommendation to the full council but regardless of what the landmark committee's outcome it always goes forward to the urban forestry council so we will always have a hearing at the urban forestry council. at the urban forestry council the same things can happen. the full council can support the nomination, have no recommendation or deny. if the council supports the nomination if moves forward to the board of supervisors with a resolution saying that the council thinks that this tree is worthy and the packet of information about the tree. if they have no recommendation it still goes forward to the board of supervisors but only with a packet of information and no recommendation if the true is worthy. if they think the tree is not worthy of landmark status the process ends at this point. if the tree is protected the protection period ends at this point and the tree can't be nominate the again for three years. ultimately all trees are landmarked by board of supervisors ordinance so from that point it's out of the urban forestry council's hands and goes into the board of supervisors' normal ordinance adoption process. if you're interested i am nominating a tree you can find out all of the environment at sf environment.org /tree. we have the full list of trees, nominated trees and the map and nomination form and a link to the code, so my short presentation and i will take any questions. >> great. are there any initial questions? commissioner matsuda. >> i have a question for mr. frye. thank you very much for your presentation and the reason we asked for a presentation there was a letter forwarded to us from a person who had a tree on her property. what came of that? now that we know the process. >> i believe it was a neighbor that was trying to nominate an adjoining tree -- was it 46 cook. >> 46a cook street. there's some question about what the species is right now. >> you are currently looking into that process? >> it's in process right now. >> very good. okay. thank you. this is very good information. i never knew about it. thanks. >> all right. thank you very much. >> i hope we get a nomination from you. have a good day. >> we will look out for them. >> at this time we will take public comment. i have one speaker card and if anybody else would like to speak please come forward after the speaker. i have rose hillson. >> good afternoon -- good afternoon president wolfram, members of the commission. i am rose hillson and i am the owner of the tree and i am a member of the urban forestry council and a chair of the committee and i have been on several years now and as you're aware there was an ordinance and through the process the urban forestry council was established in dpw code and within the code the landmark trees of codified and section 8-10. we discuss the merits of a nominated tree based on criteria to ascertain the worthiness of landmark status. i am sympathetic that came to light on process and as the historic preservation commission already has a charge to preserve cultural landscapes and structures and we have a goal to nominate trees for potential landmark status. i am delighted as chair i have agendized issues with the landmark free program as they mayor beneficial to the commission and i am happy to talk to you about them so we can be of collaborative use if that is your pleasure. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on this time? seeing none. public comment is now closed. any comments or questions? commissioner. >> thank you. i am --in (low audio) [inaudible] i think what i am interested in it sounds like we are not involved here -- i mean we can be involved [inaudible]. we can ask staff to give us a report on trees and on what the council is doing, but it appears that their recommendations go to the board of supervisors, and we don't hear about it. that's what i understood. >> we could nominate a tree. >> (inaudible). >> and then it goes into the process but it doesn't come back to this commission again. >> well, i don't know, i kind of feel in a sense this is the conundrum we get into when we hear presentations on draft environmental impact statements that we don't have as much opportunity to influence the outcome of projects, so i would be interested in knowing if we could have some kind of a report or for instance when an ordinance goes before the board that we should know about it, and not that we would object -- i don't think that would happen but to keep up to speed on that. that would be helpful to me. >> commissioner nicaragua maybe i. >> >> commissioner make i could speak to to the legislative team and for them to make a report for items that are relevant. >> when we have the civic center cultural inventory come back to us i i imagine there are coordination with the urban forestry council with trees in the civic center. will there be? as far as the inventory i imagine there is identification of historic trees in the area like the [inaudible] >> tim frye, department staff. we will share the survey with them, but other than that there wasn't any plan to take the cultural landscape survey further than that other than adoption by this commission, but we're certainly willing to share with them and have a discussion about any of the trees identified within the survey. >> yeah, okay. well, i would encourage you -- >> [inaudible] >> commissioner johns. >> thank you. getting back to your point about that coordination. this is why i was thinking it. i was wondering if there is some way that when the trees are being landmarked where there is that process before the decision is made and it goes to the board of supervisors is there some way that we could have have some involvement or knowledge or participation going on there so we could be involved at an earlier time? i don't know how that would work but if it could work i think that would be benefit to both commissions. >> perhaps there is some type of notification process where we're notified of a landmark being made. >> well, before the board -- >> [inaudible] >> so there is a notification process when trees are nominated before the ufc has their hearing. we send out notification to the public works department and to the planning department to make sure any projects planned for the site don't impact the ability of the tree to make it through the process. we note whether or not the trees are protected with the email so there is a notification from our office. >> it does from your office to the planning department but there is another step which is from the planning department to the -- >> commission. >> to the historic preservation commission. >> i was going to suggest that possibly i could get added to that list. >> i would be happy to add you. >> and i will notify you. >> okay. thank you very much. >> okay and i did want to tell the commission i have a tree i'm going to nominate and i will be working on so we will see a tree coming forward shortly and i have a question. does the form require the nominator to identify the species and i'm not sure what it is or to find out. >> we have gotten incorrect species on the form before. the council is expected to be experts on this. >> okay. >> so we expect the nomination forms to not have all of the information but just everybody does their best. if it turns out to be something else we will let you know. >> okay great. >> i have one too and maybe we should get together and i will show you yours and you show me mine. >> thank you very much. okay. we can move on. >> commissioners we continued item 7 which will place us on item 8, historic interpretive program informational presentation. >> [inaudible] oh yeah there is that big tree there. >> all right. we're ready. >> [inaudible] department staff. i am here to present to you an overview of historic interpretive programs in other cities so we can facilitate a discussion about creating such a program in san francisco. staff would like to ask the commission to provide direction on the content and structure of the program for plaques, signage and website and website formats recognizing article 10 and 11 buildings. i want. >> to begin with the preliminary plaque design for article 10, individual landmark buildings. the draft template provided by a graphic designer shows a round plaque with the landmark number, name and text about the building significance. department staff could write the text and the property owner could be responsible for ordering and paying and installing the plaque. the plaque program could be voluntary or if the commission wants to require landmark buildings to display a plaque a code amendment might be require the. if a permit is required to install the plaque the fee maybe substantially reduced for that building permit. cost estimates for this type of plaque fall in the range of 1100 to $2,000 for 18-inch plaque to 24-inch plaque. alternative metals such as alum name with finish might reduce the costs and those estimates are pending. i want to show examples how other cities structure their program. in san diego landmark owners receive a letter from the historic resources board encouraging them to display a plaque and owners are responsible for the installation of the plaque. in kentucky the owner must sign a letter of agreement with the owner to keep the integrity and the city places the order for the plaque and reimburse for the cost of the plaque and responsibility for installing it and provide the owner with installation instructions how to install it on wood and masonry. in philadelphia staff reviews a application form which the property owner submits. once approves a letter is issued to the maneuverer authorizing sale of the plaque and the designated building must be in a restored condition. next i want to talk about recognition of article 11, conservation districts. the six conservation districts are designated bies based on their architectural quality and the environment but limited information is known about the districts, what is beyond what is in the code. this makes recognition somewhat difficult. a way finding kiosk can provide an overview of each district and using maps and historical photos and anecdotes. alternatively it maybe efficient to do this on a website or a app which i will talk about later. for article 10, land mark recognition a preliminary banner design has been created. the two sided banner displays the name and logo of the district on the front and the back and the backside displays a map and text of the district. design alternatives include eliminating the text and providing a website address with the information or displaying the name and logo on both sides of the banner and made of metal or vinyl pabric fab brick and a few examples are in chicago and have a light and map about the district. another example is new york city historic district cited also attached to light poles. president wolfram provided these photos and you will note they have a map on one side and text on the other. also note that the street signs are the same colors as the signage and have the name at the top. typical new york signs have green background with white lettering. the next example washington, d.c. which has a free standing plaque with text and photos, and also a metal sign attached to light poles. so in addition to the plaque or banner program a mobile friendly website or a free downloadable app would provide information on article 10 and 11 buildings in one convenient location and provide interactive maps and current and historic photographs. ideally members of the public can contribute stories about a landmark and users can create a custom walking tours or walking tours already created by the department. a mobile friendly website built by an outside professional may cost up to $40,000 and require maintenance and hosting. an app could cost 50 to $75,000 to develop one platform and additional $15,000 for a second platform. there are additional costs for both websites and apps which would include internal resources for project manager, content administrator and technical staff for maintenance. another option is to use a mobile friendly website template such as story map. these are templates for map based tours, collection of points of interest, in-depth narratives and multiple maps. ark gis is used to create the map and used by the department as a mapping tool. additional research is necessary to determine if there is a monthly hosting fee or any other associated costs. internal resources would need for management content and maintenance. one good example of a mobile friendly website is the berkeley historical plaque project and by geographical areas and google maps and photos and links to articles and videos and lectures. it notes notable but undesignated buildings and crowd sowzing is used for the text and photos. i talk about administration of the program. city staff would be responsible for writing and approving content for plaques, way finding kiosks and the website and issues peits and reviewing attachment points and locations of plaques and way finding plaques and banners and provide technical assistance to the property owner and maybe responsible for plaque purchasing as well and promotion of educational and other opportunities. this program could have multiple partnership opportunities with local local non-profits. some examples are sf travel, sf library and the community benefits districts. a good partnership between organizations is connect historic boston which partners historic sites for advocates for walking and biking and organizations and government organizations to encourage biking and walking to national park sites and other historic distributions. possible funding sources for the program include focp and the fund committee, and also as part of the branding program designs for each neighborhood district can be made available for purchase on t-shirts, note cards, mugs. proceeds can be used to offset production costs or for additional outreach programs. outreach could be conducted via social media including facebook, twitter and supervisors and neighborhood organizations and i hope this provides you enough information and direct staff on the program, content and structure. thank you. >> thank you very much. why don't we take public comment first and we will bring it back to the commission. does anyone on the commission wish to comment on this item? seeing none. public comment is now closed and bring it back to the commission. commissioner pearlman. >> thank you very much. this is excellent information and i know something that commissioner has been clamoring for and i wrote a nomination in 2002 for the names project g. uil tbuilding and i talked to the owner and "yeah we will do that" and now it's 12 years leafert and of course there is nothing there so i did have a number of comments and i think you answered some of them along the way but the whole thing about who writes the material definitely should be written by staff and not a building owner because we're the ones that have the information, not the building owner and i think there would be so much missed information if it's the building owner so i think that is important. i know philly has not just those but district signs that are two sided signs. they're fairly sizable and sit on the sidewalk and have a lot of information for the districts, i walked around -- i was there back in may and i was overwhelmed with how much information i got in an hour and a half walk around the city, so i like the idea of those. i love the banners and i love the graphics. i mean whoever did the graphics were really fantastic but that's not that information you can get on a banner sign that's up on the light post and it's harder to read so i think a free standing sign on a sidewalk or if there is a park nearby -- you know, on a corner somewhere would have a lot of value. i had one comment on the plaque design which i thought was really cool, but the san francisco historic preservation commission seemed really big. like my eye went right to that and i think that's the least important piece of information on that plaque because it always says "san francisco lands mark" on the top and the philly sign it's tiny letters of the commission that approves that, so that was just a design idea. i did also -- when you were going through about the app i wrote down friends of city planning. perfect. seems like a perfect project along with partnerships getting money to pay for an app. i think the app is a fantastic idea. having it -- having tours that are gps or censor monitored you know related so if you had the app you could walk down the street and gps would know where the buildings are so it would just pop up when you walked by a building or into a district. it could send you a message if you have that app so i think there's a lot of opportunity with the mobile app idea is really fantastic. all great. i think it's a huge, huge success towards a fantastic program. thank you. >> commissioner matsuda. >> thank you. i also want to thank you for this great presentation. i am especially interested in seeing all the different styles of plaques and information that various cities have collected. i am interested in acquiring plaques on landmarks and if we were to do they would like to know the life of a landmark and make sure that the life of the landmark plaque is for -- i would say an extended period of time but also taking into consideration how much it would cost the owner to create that, and i am interested in this round plaque. i am not used to seeing round plaques. this is a suggested vendor plaque so this is just an idea or can you elaborate on that? >> shannon ferguson department staff. it's just a preliminary design that was suggested by a graphic designer and can be modified with any suggestions. >> i'm not a graphic artist. it looks typical. i was hoping that san francisco could have a little bit more -- i don't want to say funkiness but at least have a little bit more san francisco in it, so it stands out. i mean i could see it in san jose oar san diego, but i think for san francisco we want something a little more bold. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> no, i'm not but i think we lead the way for a lot of things and i would like to see something that would reflect that especially if we ask these people to keep it on their properties for life. boston -- i didn't see any examples of boston and i know boston has a pretty good kind of trail program. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, something like that. uniformity. i like the alamo square -- i guess flag, and i would like to see that type of uniformity in each of the districts with a little bit of a nuisance to reflect that particular district, so alamo square showing the painted ladies, maybe the western edition showing something else. chinatown showing something else but having the basic format and something about it to reflect that particular neighborhood, and then i like the whole idea of mobile friendly websites or an app. that's costly though so i am wondering when the budget is cut if it's the first thing to go and i don't want it to be the first thing to go so what you mentioned earlier about what the planning department already uses if it's cost friendly i would like to see that explored and i like the idea of commoners, people that live in the neighborhood having the ability to tell some very local stories. i think that's what makes san francisco so special so i don't know, something like that, you know, wikipedia or something like that where people could add in, and i think that was about it. my main thing was the cost. i don't know if other commissioners are interested in requiring people to have these plaques but i think it's a really good idea for people who visit our city to know how we treasure our historic resources and to have something very visual and something very cool is something i would be interested in. >> not just for visitors -- >> well, for us too. >> a lot of people don't know what the landmarks are in this town. >> that's true. >> commissioner. >> thank you for the presentation. it's great and you're right jonathan i am definitely interested in the program. i think the major decision staff needs to know if there is unanimity of us recommending -- making a requirement, and i think because it is expensive, yeah, and but -- and i am in favor of requiring this now with going forward. are we going to grandfather -- exclude existing landmarks or would we go back to them, and i am wondering if some already have plaques and how we're going to balance out those that already have plairks with the idea of a new plaque? i am definitely in favor of consistency and the uniformity. i like what has come forward and interesting points commissioner matsuda on design but i like what you have come up with, and i would like to see all the landmarks in the city have that, but there again the question is what's the status of existing landmarks? how many have something already? you mean you want me to change what i have already? so i just see that -- needs more information on the status now and how that would affect anything new that we put forward? so that's number one so i guess we need more information about what the impact is going to be to property owners. the districts' idea -- i definitely think of a banner sign is a great idea for districts and how we -- you know, fund that is a question, and whether the existing fund -- we have a preservation fund as i recall that we have a committee for, et cetera. i need to look more into that, how we would get it funded, but i definitely like the idea of having a district sign, but i guess back to the requirement. i would -- the process for requiring a sign, a plaque on landmarks i think is -- the question is whether the building department has to file a separate permit for that. i would think that might be a problem if it has to be a separate -- >> [inaudible] >> going forward i would like to see whatever the building permit that is secured for renovations that we approve or part of the landmark status that it be all inclusive rather than a separate process, so those are my ideas. >> great. commissioner johns. >> thank you. i also agree that with the -- i would like to see all landmarks, old and new have similar plaque, but the other thing is from time to time we've had people -- we have required people as part of that mitigation to have some sort of sign or plaque, and that should be rolled into this as well in my judgment. at the california preservation conference down in san diego recently there was a presentation made by some people from the city of riverside who i thought had an extremely good approach to this general subject. i looked for the materials from that and i couldn't find them. i misplaced them but undoubtedly we could go to -- because they're just here in san francisco and find out that information but i recall being extraordinarily impressed with what they had done in riverside. >> commissioner hasz. >> thank you. i have a quick question for commissioner. in philadelphia were those all on the ground, those kiosks? >> yes, they were mounted. they were about 5 feet wide mountod square and both sides had different information. >> yeah. >> i mean there was a big name so you knew what it was but there was so much information because you had two sides and maybe about three, 4 feet high. >> yeah, because the port has those. >> right. >> that's true. >> they're great and spread out so you can see the next one. that's easy because they're in line. i worry about graffiti on that. the banners are great but i ask commissioner wolfram can you read the banners because they're up high? >> yeah you could. >> and seemed to me to get them off of the ground for that reason. i like the port ones but in the neighborhoods they would be knocked down. >> they do. >> yeah, so that's my thing there. >> [inaudible] >> on the signage for districts we have these small ones now usually at the descrans of the district, right? what i worry about is the timeline of redoing them individually by districts and different designs and how long it takes to come to consensus on anything; right? what would we be entering into if we want unique designs by district. okay. who is in charge of that and who gets to decide? and how many people will complain once it's decided and that's why i like the little ones and if we had a app or website and add that on so somebody can hop on and get information. >> can i aska question about that? >> yeah. >> i think with banners or some sort there are many entrance points and see them on many corners so you would know whichever way you come from and that's what i find appealing about that, and i understand in san francisco many people will complain no matter what we come up with but those i don't see very often. >> i like the banners but i am saying coming up with unique ones for the district and i would like to push that aside and have something uniform for speed and less anguish for the department and that's my stuff on that. i also -- are we in contact with the airport commission and any kiosks there for like here's our historic district in the city? it seemed like they would want something as well. i know they have history of the airport but just as a welcome to san francisco, you know. i thought that might be interesting, and then when we go to the plaques, the bronze plaques i totally understand commissioner matsuda as something funky but at the same time to me i could go to washington. i could go to a lot of towns and this is a common look and feel so it catches me eye so when i first looked at this i thought oh instantly preservation, right. just to me the look and feel of it says that so it catches my eye no matter what city i am in so i kind of like it for that. i understand so i mean if other designs want to come forward that would be great but to me i kind of -- i am actually okay with it as much as i like something funky and new so that's my thought on that. thank you. >> great. mr. frye. >> commissioners just a couple of thoughts and comments on keep the conversation going and give you background on the images that we presented to you. one is in regards to the plaque along with what commissioner hasz said in scanning plaques across the country they tend to have a traditional uniform appearance. it seems like they base the template what is recommended by the national register. when we pose the question to the graphic designer their idea of making it uniquely san francisco is looking at the round shape rather than a typical rectangle or square shape or unique or uniform to what is commonly seen. certainly we can reengage the graphic designer if you would like to see other examples. then we can give you several options to choose from but that is a little background on that. in regards to what would trigger our review or our responsibility in preparing the content and reviewing the installation of the plaque we thought as well that there needed to be some sort of relationship with dbi to maybe require a permit, perhaps like a 1 dollar permit, something to trigger the review and engage the property owner and work on the content but developed in a way it wasn't burdensome or time consuming for the property owner. along those lines if we are to make plaques a requirement examples we have seen throughout the country where they're a requirement the jurisdiction generally takes respond then for costs -- responsibility for costs and i think that is reasonable for us to explore funding resources for us to be responsible for the cost if we're requiring it. that would certainly give us more control over the content and ordering the plaques, et cetera, and with that my goal or i agree with you that it would be nice for then it's retroactive and we make sure all landmarks whether designated in the 60's or today have a plague to represent the history or explain the history. and then finally the banners. our idea, and if this is not the right path please let me know. our idea to make them uniquely reflect the neighborhood was to change sort of that graphic logo at the base, so while you see these graphics represent the painted ladies a very similar style perhaps for dog patch or south end you would have a brick or a warehouse style building down there so something to reflect the built in environment of the districts but keep them very general, but just as a way to brand the banners so people know these are about the landmark district and not about something else so we didn't want to get too detailed inet crag a new image for or new banner for every district. we wanted it to be pretty uniform. that's it. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> yeah, i agree with what mr. frye said. that's the whole idea of the branding and what makes it unique. i think that's the thing that gives our historic districts something that is unique because you see them and you know that's different from the plaque. in ferms of the permit seems that we go through the process and there is all this paperwork. if the city is going to pick up the cost of the plaque why can't be be included in process of designation so if you're designated you paid the permit for that and if you're coming through for the first time that is just part of it? it's a paperwork thing. if there is another permit i have to file it's just a hassle and make it inclusive that makes it easier and i want to put m my vote also as requiring it as part of the process because i think that's critical. >> great. i have a few comments and questions for the department. i want to thank the department for this great presentation and i am happy to finally see this program kind of starting off. a couple of things i wanted to raise i agree with commissioner hasz about the concern about graffiti and why i like the banner and we have issues with municipal property and dolores park just opened and graffiti happened within days of opening so there is a real problem there so i want a program that is graffiti resistance and the banner is a good idea. the question i have about the banner is accessibility and what program we have for accessibility and if they're high banners there they're not accessible for people with disabilities and there has to be an alternate program for them that couldn't read the banners, and the questions were more about what are the next steps? how can we keep this moving? how can we gain momentum? who are the people we want to partner with? do we invite sf travel here to talk about funding sources? can we get part of the hotel tax to pay for he's? what are ways -- it's not all coming from the friends of city planning or the fund program. it's a program that we need other scparns a perfect use for the hotel tax and funding source so that's my question. how do we get momentum and keep it going? what are the next steps? >> commissioners, tim frye, department staff. we certainly want to keep things moving. i would suggest that we convene a member with sf travel and our communications team and just start coming up with revenue sources and flushing out of the various aspects of the program, and maybe say in two months before the end of the year we should come back to you with an update. if any of you or president wolfram if you would like to participate i think it would be beneficial to have somebody from the commission at the simple f travel meeting and -- sf travel meeting and we could go from there. >> great. commissioner. >> is the sf travel the same as th the convention and visitors bureau. >> no. it's a quasi association responsible for promoting tourism and san francisco amenities to visitors but also to local residents. we have been working with them closely as part of the cultural heritage assets committee because they have a number of neighborhood initiatives that focus on primarily small businesses but that would be my first recommendation is to start with sf travel and go from there and i believe they're connected to the airport commission and we could connect. >> and are they connected -- i mean does the visitors and convention bureau do they sponsor different things i think. >> i'm not too familiar with them but we will look into that and reach out to them as well. >> yeah, i would suggest contacting them. i know the head of the bureau on a commission when we designated for the port with the new cruise terminal and they will really involved. i will say that and i recommend contacting them as well. >> any final comments? no. we will move on. >> very good commissioners. that places us with item 9 downtown monitoring report 2014. this is a five year update informational presentation. >> this is the presentation, yeah. >> all of that is in that. >> got you. >> [inaudible] >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is pauley [inaudible] and with the information and analysis group and i'm going to briefly summarize the downtown monitoring report which we published last month. so the downtown plan was passed in 1985 and contains goals and policies to guide the growth of downtown san francisco, in particular the c-3 district pictured in red. we are statutorily required to give monitoring reports and track being indicate oshes and topics and every five years we put together a detailed report covering a longer period of time and this includes data from 2008-2014. one of the indicators that we track is commercial kantd cants rates so you can see the rates for the region, for the city and for downtown over the past seven years. as you can see cantonese rates. >> >> vacancy rates rose and then went down and you will see a similar trend in the graphs and this is 11% downtown in 2009 and now it's back to 6%. so similar story for hotel average occupancy and daily room rates. average daily room rates for example has risen almost 34% since 2008 and about $254 per night. proposition m which was passed after the downtown plan in 1986 limits the amount of downtown space and the intention is prevent fluctuations andet ras by speculative investment during the peaks of the business cycle. the white line shows the amount of square footage available and the red line is the space allocated in each year. from 2008-2014 we had this amount of square feet allocated and leaving this amount surplus by the end of the year. the amount under the program available is 1.7 million square feet. from 2008-2014 developers constructed 1.6 million square feet of net commercial base in districts and half was office space, 30% hotel and retail and a small amount of cultural institutional and educational made up the remaining 20%. hotel and sales tax collections have seen city growth since the recession with hotel tax collections in particular showing a sharp rise in 2013 and growing 106 percent since 2008. annual business tax collections have also increased by 55% over the period from 387 million in 2008 to 612 million in 2014. part of that increase is due to new business tax structure that took effect in 2013 but another reason is unemployment in the city has introan to unprecedented levels and increased 10% by 2008 and downtown jobs have grown by 14%. at the end of 2014 that were 630,000 jobs in san francisco and all time high and the city has added thousands of jobs and many are located in the downtown districts and you can see compared to the city as a whole downtown has a higher proportion of office jobs and fewer retail, pdr or cultural institution and educational jobs. the downtown plans 1,000 new housing units constructed city wide every year. you can see that the housing production dropped significantly during the recession but since rebounded to recession levels. over the 2008-14 period there were over 14,000 units produced city wide and many located in the c-3 district so we're seeing a significant share of the city's new housing downtown. one potential impact of housing close downtown can be seen here and they walk much more than city residents overall and workers commuting on the other hand are likely to take transit. looking into the future we have 3.6 million of office development in the c-3 district and representing the 12 million square feet. the two major locations are at candlestick point and mission bay. almost 54 units of housing are in the pipeline of the residential pipeline. the overall pipeline includes the master plan projects at treasure island and park merced and candlestick park and 25,000 units. and then the five year downtown monitoring reports include a section covering major developments in the arena of historic preservation. the period from 2008-2014 has seen the formation of this commission, the issuance of over 300 certificates of appropriateness and permits to alter and air completion of multi-year historic survey as part of the district plan. these images though case several of the rehabilitation projects downtown which are highlighted in the report. so as part of the transit center district plan process an indepth survey was completed in the area surrounding new montgomery street and resulted in expansion of the mission 2nd street conservation district to third street and inclusion of three buildings to the commission's landmark designation program and article 11 reclassification of 26 buildings within the planned area. the downtown plan established a special use district around the transbay terminal to shift construction to the area and historic resources in the traditional financial district and enabling owners of buildings for preservation to sell rights to developers in the special use district. the ordinance was amended by the board of supervisors in 2010 to allow owners of historic buildings to sell rights to any c-three lot. today many have been certified under this program. this represents about 72% of the total 8 million square feet of potential development rights enabled by the program. and with that i am happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. why don't we take public comment first. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none. public comment is now closed and bring it back to the commission for questions or comments. commissioners any? commissioner. >> well, i am interested in year doing this monitoring. how did it come about and how do the topics, the categories -- >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> sure, yeah. when the plan was passed in 85 there was a section that was put into administrative code that basically -- it's a little vague but it basically requires that the planning department every year monitor certain things that relate to the goals of the plan, and so the plan for example has goals to reduce single occupancy auto commuting into downtown and so every year we kind of look at the census and what it says about how people are getting downtown so it's in the administrative code and that's why we do it, and it lists the topics that need to be covered, but it's a little bit vague. yeah, it's in the administrative code, yes. >> well, i guess where i am coming from is our relationship at historic preservation to the categories and -- [inaudible] interested in is how the urban form, urban design, quality of life -- how that is being tracked because -- you know, in terms of the amenities that are provided in the downtown area to improve and enhance our quality of life and one of course is historic preservation and what we're doing and how that is integrated downtown, so i am just interested -- you know, seeing the natural qualities, the trees, the parks, the open spaces, the way the buildings have been designed. i would be interested in how that is being monitored. it doesn't appear to be in the [inaudible] oh like you say it's in a little vague there is an opportunity to recommend a esthetic being monitored i would be interested in that. it needs to come to this commission back to the planning department and that's what my thoughts are. >> there is a section on open space in the report. >> okay. >> public and private. >> okay. i guess that comes from that too so i should go back and scrutinize that and meets my thinking. >> absolutely. we welcome new ideas -- >> [inaudible] >> any additional ideas. >> you're right. there is that open space in there. >> there is open space and there is no design review process in san francisco so that's hard to moon torbecaus because it's objective. >> any other comments commissioners? then our hearing is adjourned. thank you. [gavel] >> we love our parks, but we love... >> and the community who is really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. >> the children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. and we have generations, the youth generations that will be able to use this park in different places. >> the best park in san francisco right here. >> creating place where people can be active and lead, active, healthy life styles that are going to just stay with them for life. for life. ♪ announcer: b dreams and good grades aren't enough to get into college. there are actual steps you need to take. finding someone who can help is the first and most important. for the next steps, go to knowhow2go.org. >> we'll call the meeting to order role commissioner pating i'll note to here commissioner singer commissioner chung commissioner sanchez and sxhashgs the second item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for august 418, 2015. >> there a motion. >>

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Mission Bay , California , Kentucky , China , Boston , Massachusetts , San Diego , Alamo Square , Washington , District Of Columbia , Nicaragua , San Francisco , Berkeley , North Beach , Hayes Valley , Chicago , Illinois , Park Merced , Ortiz Cartagena , Irene Riley , Richard Hall , Benny Hoff , John Maloney , Steven Adams , Tim Frye ,