Items proposed for continuance. The first one, conditional use authorization iss ed for continuance to january 18, 2018. Item two, 247 17th avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance indefinitely. Item three, case number 201600585cua, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. Further, commissioners under your item calendar, for the expansion review, this informational presentation is proposed for continuance indefinitely. I have no other items proposed for continuance. I had one item to speak to item eight for the residential expansion threshhold, but i believe it was to the subject matter rather than the continuance. Ok. So, well open it up for Public Comment on the items being proposed for a continuance. [inaudible]. Go ahead. Sure. Absolutely. Ok. Good afternoon. Heres a map that i was going to give you if we had the hearing today. I had mr. Webster make it. It shows all the r. H. Zones. Green is rh1, yellows the no. Red is the rh2 and yellow is the rh3 and you have the ability as a commission to deal with the numerical criteria. Its in the planning code. It says the Planning Commission may reduce the above numerical elements of the criteria in subsections b and b2c by up to 20 of their values should any adjustment be necessary to implement the intent of this section. So, while this is all being jettisoned, you do have a chance to do something even though this has been discontinued indefinitely and heres my point. Heres the material on it. Thank you, have a good day. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment on the items being proposed for a continuance . Seeing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioner . Motion to continue items one, two, three to the date specified and item number eight indefinitely. Second. Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items excuse me as proposed. Commissioner fong . [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 50. In places of admission matters, i have four commissioners with comments and questions. Commissioner moore. Thank you to the mayors office. Thank you to the mayor for organizinging the pop up yesterday at city hall. It was a lovely experience. It was apaying to see the variety and quality of local makers and i strongly encourage to do that more often. That is around easter or any other holiday because it animates the [inaudible] in a wonderful way and the products are amazing. Thank you. Seeing no other commissioners comments, department matters. M5, directors announcements. Thank you. Commissioners two announcements today. One, as you know, there are there is a proposal for two separate ballot measures that are being that will be registered to seek signatures. One is related to prop m and one is related to Affordable Housing and teacher housing. And i just a reminder to staff and commissions that at this point we cant take public positions on these measures. But secondly, both of these measures will greatly affect our work. If they do qualify for the boil, well schedule hearings in february to go over how it affects our work and do our normal objective analysis of those measures because they will likely have a substantial impact onawa we do and how we do our work in those areas. Secondly, related to the withdrawal of the residential expansion threshhold, we are the department has decided to suspend our efforts with respect to the r. E. T. If you remember, we had multiple goals there. One was to redo or eliminate the tantamount to demolition, which we believe is currently very ineffective. We wanted to place a more emphasis and size and density of buildings and encouraged owners to build to their permitted density and to replace the demolition controls with something that was a little more clearer as i understand. There was a lot of concern about the way we were doing it, what the goals are and frankly some of the disagreements were not totally clear to me. But nonetheless, we think it is time to pull the plug. And well be focusing just on that, rather than the other parts of the effort. I will say that some of those goals that we initially laid out will not be met, clearly. At this point, it is probably the most prudent thing to do after spending two years on this. We needed to pick our battles. If you dont mind an editorial comment. One of disappointing aspects of the this process has been that theres deliberate misinformation spread by members of the community to the point that they admitted it was misinformation. And that is very disappointing to me. And its one of those things that makes it hard to do our job, but also i guess it is a comment on the Public Discourse these days. On whats acceptable in the Public Discourse and ill just say, for the record, its pretty disappointinging that that is happening here at this time and place. Thank you. That includes my comments. Thank you. Commissioner moore . I have a question. I read the Statement Issued by your department, talking about a collaboration with d. B. I. That is something you kind of did not mention, but i would be interested in hearing you clarify that. Yeah. I think the goal here is to combine efforts and make sure and basically have one definition for demolition between the two. Anybody helping as an arbitrator because the two different definitions have been standing for many, many years and are often the reason for discontent and contradictory solutions. Is there an attempt to have somebody help you negotiate where you have Common Ground . I think what our goal is to only have one definition and have it live in probably the Building Code so that there is only one definition rather than having two separate definitions so well be in dialogue very extensively about that one. One of most disappointing things coming out of this entire process is, one, that it ended. But two, really realising that the Building Department doesnt follow its own processes. I hope that whatever we come up with whether it is a definition that fits in the Building Code or planning code or both codes, after we have our joint meeting that we measure the effectiveness as to whether its followed by the organization that has the definition. That was incredibly disappointing to see that they dont follow their own definition. Commissioner moore. I have one question for you have you been following the modular building of Homeless Housing in san jose . Not today, perhaps, but at some other time you could give us an update of how that would fit for us or doesnt. I thought it was interesting, the solution looks kind of interesting. And it will be perhaps good for the commission as well as the public to know as the communities are doing. Weve been following a lot of modular housing and technologies. Im happy to talk about that in the future. Thank you. I attended a couple of Community Meetings and staff meetings. I thought they were great. Informative. I think the goal the staff did a wonderful goal in trying to advance this. I think there are two kind of goals that were set out. One to figure out a better way they define demolition and then building to the zoning density or both great goals that its unfortunate kind of got stimied in this process. So i appreciate your efforts and all the efforts by staff. If theres nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to review to board of supervise soses board of appeals and the Historic Preservation commission. I understand that you are on a tight timeline today. So, i emailed you the report. Im here if you have any questions about it. I will just note that the two c. U. Appeals at the board of supervisors this week, one for the project at 948 lombard street and the other on irving street were both upheld by the board of supervisors and that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Good afternoon. For just clarity. Mr. Starr, did you have a question . The apellants were not upheld the c. U. S were upheld. Thats what i thought. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Tim frye, Department Staff here to share with you a few items from yesterdays Historic Preservation commission hearing. On october 19, i shared with you the initiation of three local public schools. Thee yore roosevelt, George Washington high school and sunshine school, all three of those received a positive recommendation to be forwarded to the board of supervisors at yesterdays h. P. C. S hearing and those hearings will be scheduled some time in the new year. The commission did initiate one new designation at yesterdays hearing. If i could get the overhead, please. This is the Phillips Building located 246 first street. Designed in 1930 by architects myers and clinichart. It is a rare art deco loft building in downtown San Francisco and the Property Owners are initiatinging the local designation. The commission unanimously approved the initiation and that will be scheduled for a second hearing likely in january. That concludes my remarks unless you have any questions. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner richards . One thing on mr. Starrs prior report. If you havent seen the tape on the aeel for lombard at the board of supervisors, that is an interesting watch. If you see supervisor peskin talk about exactly some of the issues that weve been seeing happening. Id encourage everybody to watch that. There is no report from the board of appeals. So we can move on to general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the jurisdiction subject of the commission. It is your. It is your opportunity to address the commission. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I did have several speaker cards. Thank you. Janet fowler, georgia schiudas, richard and if youd like to speak, come on up. In any order. I dont think ms. Powers here. I just want to i was going to show you some photos. You probably dont want to see them. I mean, you know what the problem is. We all know what the problem is. I respect the staff greatly. And i want to make that clear since i dont want to be categorized as spreading false rumors. I dont think i did that. My concern has always been the issue of demolition and how much should be demolished. I think the current criteria in section 317 is really worth looking at in terms of demolition. And that was my concern. I respect the staff. I get what they were trying to do. I didnt understand it. Because i dont think it dealt with the tantamount to demolition as it should. I still think that is a decent concept to work with and one definition of demolition may not be fair to people that want to do legitimate, honesttogod alterations and that is my position. Thank you. And we can talk about it again in the new year. And i really do hope that you consider dealing with the numerical criteria that you have a right to do. And i hope the residential flat policy stays because i think that is really important. And i also hope that youll look at upping the number thats also in the residence in the criteria. The idea that keeping getting rid of that affordability thing for the rh1 is a very important thing. Youve had a lot of projects that are just over that number. 50,000 over. 323 cumberland and 653 28th come to immediate mind. Those things should not have been torn down or looked at in a different way. So, thats all im going to say. I want to thank ms. Watty and ms. Butkus and ms. Bendeks. I think their heart was in the right place and im sorry if everybodys upset. But thats the way it goes. Appreciate it. I know this is not a dialogue time. But i wasnt refering to any comments and staff and i just want to be clear. Staff has appreciated working with you on this. There are other members of the community that i was refering to that had a different story. And i i understand that. And just want to be clear it was not directed at you. Ok. I understand that. I appreciate that. And aappreciate that very much. Because i feel that i feel very strongly about that whole problem. Its only been four years weve been talking about this. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner richards . No, ill wait until the end. Sorry. Yep. Sorry. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im Richard Frisbee from the Laurel Heights improvement association. Id like to discuss the urban Design Guidelines which appears in some way to be mimicking the reshls expansion threshhold problems. In the interest of time, though, im only going to discuss one issue because i think it is representative and that is the makeup of the external Advisory Committee. I have a lengthy letter, to quote, im sorry you found the process unsatisfactory. There have been a huge number of stakeholders involved and it goes on. Lets take a brief look at the stakeholders that were actually included in the Advisory Committee. I think most people would consider neighborhood groups to be major stakeholders. Of the 45 members, exactly three Neighborhood Associations were represented. Three. Thats less than 5 . With developers alone had a greater representation on that Advisory Group than did the Neighborhood Associations. In fact, representives from developers, architects and real estate groups made up approximately 50 of your Advisory Group where as a Neighborhood Association reped less than 5 . And, in fact, the largest Neighborhood Coalition in the city, the coalition of San Francisco neighborhoods, wasnt even invited to be a member. So, if a farmer were to develop a new henhouse, i doubt his Advisory Committee would exist of five hens, five foxes and 25 predators who thought chicken was a good dinner and yet that is exactly what the Planning Departments Advisory Group looks like. On september 25, the coalition of San Francisco neighborhoods sent a detailed 13page letter to the Planning Commission addressing concerns about the draft of the urban Design Guidelines. The letter began, dear commissioners. So, i can only assume that each of you has received a copy. The date, december 7, 10 weeks later, we have received no response whatsoever. Not even the courtesy of a reply that a letter was received. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sue hester. I wanted to talk about demolitions. I think you should acknowledge that you have a former member of the Building Inspection Commission on this commission. And that solution of the demolition issue involves d. B. I. As well as the planninging department. D. B. I. Staff is part of the problem. In my opinion because the commission doesnt see things. And ive been dealing with demolitions and office use per mys for 40 years. And there is a problem and there needs to be a discussion. And i should involve some d. B. I. Commissioners as well as d. B. I. Staff. As well as planning staff as well as anyone thats interested on this commission. This is a big issue. It deserves some attention, that people that are not developers and attorneys for developers and architects from developers but the public that it is involved in. And i would suggest there is a solution somewhere. There has to be a solution somewhere. D. B. I. Follows the uniform Building Code for a lot of definitions. They have their own definitions in the San Francisco wraparound on the uniform Building Code. But the whole way demolitions are manipulated and the whole [inaudible] is manipulated is a substantial problem. I dont think the commission is very well aware of this unless you do this if your private life. Commissioner moore does, i know she does. And commissioner milgar used to do it in her former life as commissioner for d. B. I. But the rest of you dont really understand how much this is a really threshold issue for the survivability of Residential Housing and affordable Residential Housing. Its really substantial. And i dont say you can go start things today, but there should be some discussion involving several commissioners and staff as well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any additional general Public Comments . Hi. Im here today to talk about a report that the Planning Department wrote in january of this year to Adult Housing for families with children. It shows that the city is building some subsidized housing for very lowincome families and there is enough housing for the ultra wealthy. But what about the middleincome families or even middleincome people with kids . The median Family Income is 108,000 a year and banks will typically give you a loan for a house value of four to five times your annual income. Assuming you have saved enough for the down payment. This means that the median family, who makes 108,000 a year can afford a 500,000 home, which we all know doesnt exist in San Francisco. And probably not even in the inner part of the bay area. So, how do we help middleincome people here in San Francisco . Luckily the report has several suggestions. To quote from page 32, one reason that housing for the missing middle is no longer being built is because of zoning restrictions. Current zoning restricts 72 of our privately owned parcels to Single Family homes and duplexes, putting the burden of population growth for both jobs and housing on the remaining 28 . End quote. To me, this doesnt really seem fair. To push all the development to the east side of the city with the west side building nothing but reaping all the Property Value increases. Also page from page 32 of the report. This restriction is to allow neighborhoods to be zoned by the form that the building takes, also known as zone as formbased zoning. This tool allows the city to regulate based on the appearances, height, bulk, etc. And not simply based on the number of units. End quote. I encourage this Planning Commission to read or reread this report, switch to formbased zoning for all land in San Francisco and upzone the Single Family residential districts in San Francisco. Only by following your own recommendations will housing be built for the missing middle. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, plea. If there are any. Seeing none, well close general Public Comment. Commissioner rich arts . Three things to say as hearing the first three public speaker members of the public speaking in Public Comment. First, now that the residential expansion threshold has been actually taken away, withdrawn, we need to look demonstratively on section 317 as georgia mentioned. Im seeing perfectly sound houses in my neighborhood being demolished and monster houses being replaced with them. And if the goal is to actually Affordable Homes that are existing, section 317, the demonstrably unaffordable is not helping that in any way, shape or for the purpose. Secondly, the first person who spoke from the San Francisco association. My apolicying. We get hundreds of copies of emails a week. Please hand it over. Id like to look at it. The third one, ms. Hester, i know you categorized commissioner moore and others as being professionals going through these rules of rigor. I recently and am currently going through issues with d. B. I. And i have to tell you, i get some of my neighbors and some of the members of the publics anger over the way were treated, for the very minor infractions that were called out on. I know there is a Public Safety issue. But half an inch between the center of my toilet bowl and the wall is not something i would call a huge Public Safety issue to have to rip a whole bathroom back out. When i see serial permitting and buildings are entirely demolished. So i walk away, and ill say this with the utmost candor. I feel there are two sets of rules. One for me and one for everybody else whos connected and im reflecting the publics anger right now. Im also going through another issue that i cant even begin tole tell you the craziness that is involved and the stuff im getting back from the department of building inspections. So, i cant wait to have a joint hearing with d. B. I. Because its time that we get rid of these kind of things that are happening. Thank you. Commissioners, if there is nothing further, we can move on to regular calendar item. For the 2017 Health Care Services master plan informational presentation. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, commissioners. Department staff. The item before you today is an informational presentation on the updates to the Health Care Services master plan as required under planning code section 342. The plan is a collaborative effort of the San Francisco department of Public Health and the Planning Department. Id like to introduce our agency partners. Good afternoon, commissioners. Department of Public Health. We have been working in collaboration with lisa and the Planning Department for over a year on updating the Health Care Services master plan. And when this is created in 2013, the main purpose and goal was to promote equitable distribution and access to Health Care Services in the city. In particular for low income and vulnerable populations. The plan has two key roles. First it serves as a longrange policy and planning document. That provides information about San Franciscos Health Care Delivery landscape and, second, it provides a way to evaluate certain medical plans. We know that since the creation of the plan, weve seen several changes in our Health Care Delivery landscape, including the implementation of the Affordable Care act, which is expanded coverage to more than 130,000 residents in the city and weve seen other changes such as the decline in the number of Skilled Nursing facilities and beds that we have. Which provide longterm Care Services for our growing senior population. So, this plan really provides an opportunity for us to identify what are some of the emerging and changing trends in health care and Health Facilities and we we look forward to continuing this discussion as we update the plan and bring it to you next year for adoption. Thank you. Ok. So todays presentation will start with some context on the Health Facility landscape in San Francisco. Followed by a highlevel overview of the 2017 master plan. Well be returning early next year for an initiation hearing as well as a joint indoctrination hearing with the health commission. San francisco has a rich landscape of medical facilities that you can probably see with your own eyes throughout the city. Our Health Care Facilities serve people of all backgrounds, income and stages of life. This diversity is reflexive of our values of the city. Our policymakers and residents have repeatedly affirmed their commitment to ensuring access to health care for all san franciscans, through policies and programs such as healthy San Francisco, which is a nationally recognized model. In terms of our planning code, this diversity facility really boils down to three core categories. The most visible of these is, of course, our hospitals and medical centers. We have seven hospitals at 12 locations, providing inpatient, outpatient and Emergency Care typically for short term stays. Health and medical Services Form the broadest category facilities covering all outcare. This includes private doctors, dentists, acupuncturists and the like. Residential care facilitis from the last major category providing longer term 24hour lodging and Health Care Including Skilled Nursing facilities, Residential Behavioral Health and other longterm care. Citywide, these facilities comprise rough 25 million square feet of space. Health care is the citys fourth large industry, providing 40,000 jobs which represents a 50 increase from 2010 to 2015. Notably growth in the sector has been fairly steady over time, even during periods of recession. Much of the current medical facility pipeline involves renovations or reconstructions of our major hospitals, partially in response to seismic upgrades requirement at the state. Currently there is 1. 3 million square feet of medical space in the pipeline including one million square feet at the cpmc van fess and mission burrnel hospitals. 1. 6 million square feet and medical space was completed. 80 of which was at hospitals. Going forward, the 2013 Health Care Services master plan projected we will need one to 1. 5 million square feet of medical space by 2035. The plan specified that much of this growth may occur in Outpatient Facilities distributed throughout our city rather than at centralized hospitals. This could impact improve access to care and fit in better with existing neighborhoods. As part of the 2017 plan youre revising these projection. In recent years, a related trend is that we have seen a rise in forprofit Outpatient Facilities such as go medical and one urgent care. Many facilities are small enough that they dont appear in our Development Pipeline around 3,000 square feet or less and theyre located in neighborhood commercial districts and other locations that are convenient to where people live and work. We had an early round of stakeholder interviews with health providers, commercial brokers, merchans and Neighborhood Associations and ive differing opinions about these facilities. They may have an impact on the street, although its worth noting that the design varies significantly. On the other hand, we heard that these facilities can generate foot traffic and can be a welcomed addition to neighborhoods, especially given the increasing vacancy rates in some corridors. They can also provide more convenient access to health care, potentially leading to pressure on other medical facilities. As part of the plan update, were exploring policy recommendations to mitigate these impacts with the goal of creating a balance between our growing Health Care Needs and our desire to support vibrant commercial districts. There are a number of trends other trends that were driving what were seeing in the pipeline and what we expect to see going forward. First we do expect the industry to keep growing and in particular the rapid increase in the number of seniors which will comprise one quarter of our population by 2016. Were seeing a Movement Toward building Outpatient Facilities, not just private facilities but also in our hospitals, Community Clinics and other health providers. This is a way of reducing the cost of providing care and has been spurred by the Affordable Care act, which has been increasing funding and Insurance Coverage for preventive health. Were also seeing a number of trends and innovations in the health care industry, such as telemedicine and finally were seeing projected shortages of Health Care Workers due to caps in our current medical training programs, projected population growth and the number of doctors reaching retirement age. This is not an exhaustive list, but all these trends do speak to a continued and growing demand for Health Care Services. In response to these trends, the Health Care Services master plan was developed, recognizing we need to look beyond individual facilities or institutions and plan for our Health Care Needs at holistic level, to ensure that we have access to these Critical Services in the future. The purpose of the plan is to identify current and future Health Care Needs in San Francisco with the focus on improvinging access for vulnerable populations, to recommend an appropriate and equitable geographic and distribution of facilities, to provide a framework for reviewing future medical use Development Projects and to provide other recommendations related to Health Care Services. The genesis of the plan was in 2010 with the passage of the Health Care Services master plan ordinance. Over the following two years, d. P. H. And the Planning Department developed the first Health Care Services master plan and last years we initiated an update to the plan in accordance with the ordinance. There are three core components of the plan. The assessments, consistency determination guidelines and supporting legislation and recommendations. The assessments from the core of the plan and provide a datadriven longterm look at our Health Care Needs now and in the future. The four core components are a Community Health needs assessment, providing information on the current and future health needs of the city, the Health Systems trends assessment which looks at not only our Health System here locally but also the state and federal level, the capacity gap assessment, which looks specifically at San Francisco facilities and their bed capacity and ability to absorb emergency demands and then the land use assessment. As par of the update, were providing new information on health needs and focusing on some priority Health Care Needs including Skilled Nursing facilities and behavioral health. Well be providing more information on the assessments at a future hearing. The consistency and determination guidelines are used to evaluate new medical facilities to ensure that they are on balance, consistent with the goals of the plan. Also those greater than 5,000 squaiftz or 10,000 square feet or change of use are charged to apply to the Planning Department and d. P. H. To ensure consistency with the plan. As part of this process, were consolidating and streamlining the list of guidelines and also looking at process changes to create more alignment between this process and the institutional master plan, or i. M. P. We would, through that process, apply requirement to institutions rather than individual facilities in order to increase the impact of the plan. There have been three projects that have been through the process. Health rate 360, jewish home and planned parenthood. As you are aware, they were all found to be consistent with the plan. The last core component of the plan is the supporting legislation and recommendations. These are technically separate from the plan, but were bringing them to the policymakers as the same time as adoption. The supporting legislation falls in three core categories. One are modifications to the actual Health Care Services master plan process and ordinance, to increase efficacy and efficiency, policis that have high priority Health Care Services or facilities includinging Skilled Nursing and policies to facilitate the development of Outpatient Services or health and medical services. These ensure fit with neighborhood character and other policis to mitigate impacts on the ground floor. Well be providing further recommendations at future hearings. In terms of next steps, were in the midst of our outreach process. As noted, weve conducted stakeholder interviews with a range of stakeholders. We are in the process of scheduling briefings with Key Stakeholders and advocacy organizations. Were going to be hosting a workshop with Health Care Providers later this month, followed by an Online Survey to get even broader feedback. In terms of public hearings, well be having hearings here at the Planning Commission, board of supervisors and then there is a Public Comment period on the plan itself. Weve already conducted the stakeholder interviews and drafted the data assessments. Were midst of doing other outreach and then we anticipate that the plan will be brought for adoption early next year. This concludes staff presentation and were on hand for any questions. Great. Thank you, ms. Chen. First well open this up for Public Comment. Any Public Comment on this item . Teresa flander for senior disability action. You no doubt heard about ccmp in closing with the s. N. F. Facility. Ive had experiences with both my land lady and upstairs neighbor in terms of one in 2006 being able to go to a s. N. F. Facility right after having surgery on her broken arm and shhh was able to go home. However, the social worker was already looking for some sort of home for her, althoughle she did live alone. However, because we were able to show that she had support that she could go home. And she did. But it was really important that she had the rehabilitation that was part of the s. N. F. Unit. Four years later, when my upstairs neighbor elaine was hospitalized and was then ended up being sent to a board and care home, which was an a inappropriate place for where she was at, there were real issues with communication between the hospital, the insurance and what her real needs were. We need these facilities in other words for people to return home. That would be the ideal, to age in place. And when that cant happen, we need to make sure we have assistive Living Centers in place for elders that built the city. Im glad that it sounds like this master plan will expand on all of these things, especially looking at then residential care. There are place tas are closing right now. We at senior disability action have received calls from a place in the mission that once housed 16 seniors that had to close. And where would they go . There is nothing here that would be affordable ander learning that the nearest place might be in san mateo county. We can do better than that. So im really glad that we are taking a look at all of the medical support systems that are in place and are not in place. So we can do something about it. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment on the item . Seeing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioners . Commissioner moore. Since this is dumping on us without any preparatory reading, there was an offer to have followup meeting with the department itself. I would like to do that. Because its just too complicated to sort it out. I think it is a great step in the right direction. The devil is in the details so i myself would like to schedule a meeting and any other commissioner, up to three, could join such a meeting. Yeah. I would also like to join the meeting. Im particularly interested in the distribution of Health Care Facilities across, you know, all from smaller ones to larger ones by neighborhood and focused on, you know, cultural groups or ethic groups within the city and also age. So, that would be great to have that analysis. You know, there is a lack of facilities on the east side of town. Particularly southeast. And id like to see how the department is thinking about that in terms of new facilities. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner richards . I, too, would like to be part of that meeting. Theres been an awful lot of work put into this and i know the genesis of this was back when we had the Cathedral Hill cpmc campus as well as st. Lukes issue and i guess it started in july of 2011, according to the update here. With some of things that weve seen in the last few years, the environment may have shifted so that when were looking at the ordinance and the legislation and what wed like to have contained in a plan, i think we should definitely make sure that we take a look at the shift in how things are being delivereded, especially with these Neighborhood Centers that you discussed so aptly when we actually do this. Im interested to see where and when those might be incorporated into this. Commissioner moore, do you have a followup . I have a followup but maybe for the essence of time leave it for the discussions that we have for the department. There are a number of issues. But we can have the meeting and then report back to the rest of the commission for those who dont have tile. That would work. Thank you very much. And thank you to staff, too, for the presentation. Commissioners, item a has been discontinued indefinitely placing us on item number nine. Ism m. F. For the golden Gate University. This is the institutional master plan. Good afternoon, president. Commissioners. Before you today is an informational item regarding an institutional master plan for golden Gate University. Postsecondary educational institutions are required to have a current i. M. Perform on file with the Planning Department to describe the existing and anticipated future development of that institution. The i. M. P. Sharing should be for the receipt of testimony only and in no way should constitute a approval of any facility described therein. The i. M. P. Shall be considered accepted when the Planning Commission hearing has closed. Golden Gate University is a nonprofit private inls tuition that offers a range of undergraduate and graduate degrees primarily in law and businessrelated disciplines. The university traces its history back well over a century to evening lectures and law courses provided through the ymca Evening College and university today remains focused on providing Educational Opportunities for working professionals. As such, the majority of golden gates courses are scheduled during evening hours. And the universitys location at 536 Mission Street within the Transbay Center district further supports their mission with convenient access for working professionals in the surrounding downtown area and with approximate access to a number of transportation and routes. It was accepted in 2015 and while typically new i. M. F. Hearings are required every 10 years, theyre also requireded whenever there is a significant revision. In the interest of brevity, i will focus on those changes that have occurred or have been proposed since the last i. M. Perform filing. First the university previously housed much of its academic support within the adjacent 40 jesse Street Building. Since the last i. M. P. , the university has consolidated all of these functions within the main campus building. The university has entered into a lease agreements with a tenant for the 40 jesse Street Building with occupancy expected early next year. Second, although a majority of golden Gate University students are working professionle nas, the university was interested in evaluating the demand for Student Housing among its fulltime students. The report found the need for 316 beds currently and that is expected to grow to 510 bed by the 2021 Academic Year. As such, the university is currently exploring a potential lease option for Student Housing at the 333 12th Street Project with panoramic interests. As you may recall, this is the same project with that institution is also considering a lease. This at this time, golden Gate University is under consideration as the main tenant for the project. The project is located only two miles away from golden Gate Universitys campus with many Public Transit options and bicycle options between the sites. Again as a reminder, this i. M. P. Today is for the receipt of public testimony only and does not constitute a project approval, including project approval for that 333 12th Street Project. That project was approved by that commission approximately one year ago as a housing project. The project sponsor, however, as submitted a new request for conditional use authorization to allow that project to proceed as Student Housing. A separate conditional use authorization hearing will be held on that matter. The department has not received any Public Comment on this most recent i. M. P. Submittal and the Department Finds thism m. P. To contain all necessary information and recommends that the commission accept the i. M. As complete following the close of public testimony today. That concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Perry. Is there a representative from golden Gate University here . Welcome. Good afternoon. Im the director of Business Services and facilityings for golden Gate University and im glad to be back in front of you once again. If accordance with planning code section 304. 5, the university has filed the institutional master plan with the city. This new plan has not changed all that much from what had been previously on file. Just to recap, the university owns two properties in San Francisco. Our main facility is at 536 Mission Street and a smaller property that we extensively remodeled about eight years ago is located at 40 jesse, directly behind the Mission Street building. In late 2013 and early 2016, we vacated 40 jesse and consolidated all of our operations into our facility at 536 mission. This has made us more efficient in our use of space and has also given us the opportunity to repurpose the 40 jesse building. We have since leased it to a commercial tenant and their t. I. Work is currently under way. During this current year, weve been tackling the question that the questions that center around Student Housing and whether the university should provide in some form housing for our students. In particular our law students and International Students who tend to be the majority of our daytime students or fulltime students. Based on these questions and the dialogue that ensued, we started an indepth exploratory process. This took the form of meeting with consultants who specialize in Student Housing as well as focus groups with our students and others. Online surveys, oneonone sessions with a variety of stakeholders as well as numerous other meetings in which the pros and cons of Student Housing were discussed and dissected. The initial findings are mixed. The housing study indicates that there may be an appetite for housing and has pegged that number as high as 510 beds by Academic Year 20202021. But we also know that most of you are students are working adults who currently reside in the bay area and who are already settled in their own homes. So for them, Student Housing is not seen as a necessity. And then when looking at the cost for Student Housing, were also seeing tremendous price sensitivity, especially amongst our International Students. That then drives them away from housing in the city to less expensive options further away. It is not uncommon to find our students four or five deep sharing a onebedroom apartment in freemont or other east bay locations. Weve been in discuss with panoramic interest about their planned new project at 333 12th street. There might be opportunities for Student Housing there. Our dialogue with them continues. We have not made any decision as to the direction we will follow as we are currently also engaged in an internal detailed Strategic Planning process that will help us shape our decision and our future course of action. And finally, as many of you are keenly aware, our property at 536 mission is located in the Transbay Development area and is a highlyprized parcel. Why we dont have any current plans to move, sell or take any other action, our ongoing fiduciary sponlzes requires us to always remain vigilant for opportunitis that can better serve the university community. But it should not go unnoticed that golden Gate University has been a part of the fabric of San Francisco for well over 100 years and that is who we are. Thank you for your time and ill take any questions that you might have. Ing we may have someone open it up firsts to Public Comment. And then well see if we have questions. Any Public Comment on this item . Ms. Hester . Is golden Gate University law school, class of 1976. Sue hester. When i went to law school, and i went as a fulltime law student, most of the students had housing in San Francisco. I went to law school when i was 29. Because when i went to college, women didnt get into law school. That was the 60s. But by 73, women became a majority of my class. It was stunning. The first time there was a majority of women at a law school ever. And one of things i learned was there were two people within a block of me that already had housing, that were also in my class. One was a former professor at s. F. A. And the other was a former worker in the city. So, there was various people this my class that had housing. I knew a couple of people who didnt have housing. And they got housing in San Francisco because in the 1970s, housing was actually obtainable. Unlike 2017. I really support golden Gate University struggling with this. Its heartening to see universities nonprofit universities and state schools struggling with Student Housing. And its ucsf, the medical school, those are state schools as well as the golden gate, u. S. F. U. S. F. Has a lot of dormitories on their campus currently. But they are building ever more because they have a roman capitalism post by the board of supervisors five, 10 years ago. And they are facing up to their need to build housing. There is a difference when you have a lot of undergraduates and you have a place like golden gate where they have a lot of graduate students. I hoefp they stay in that location because my experience is people walked down from their offices to the golden gate in the nighttime. But i would urge them to also have a hearing on what is going on with the provision of housing in San Francisco. By all institutions. That would be a very productive hearing for this board to hear because it is a housing issue. And we dont want to lose schools because we cant afford to have students in the city. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, commissioner moore . Id like to bring to our attention the exceptional clarity of this particular document, career disclosure on student composition, clear disclosure on Teaching Personnel in support, besides Student Housing forecast etc. ,etc. And i would like to ask the department as we are continuinging to push for developing metrics for what an institutional [inaudible] has to do to look at the outline of this particular document on page three and use that as a minimum guideline of what were expecting from others. Starring with an executive summary, institutions, including mission and institutional goals. Ahem. Physical planned, access traffic and traffic separation patterns, Near Term Development plans, including impact on San Francisco general plan priority policies. There couldnt be anything more to the point and more obviously pointing to where others are lacking. And so i strongly urge the department and i want to bring this to the attention of all supervisors that this is the type of disclosure that we need in an evermore complex environment with competing interests about housing, etc. , etc. Walkability, transportation, congestion and, and, and, and. This is the way to do it. And i ask that all institutions, large or small, be asked to follow this outline. And my strong support and compliments to those who prepared the institutional stance behind the work. Thank you. No other comments . Well close this hearing and thank you. I appreciate your the document was very clear. Thats kind of what were looking for in an i. M. P. I appreciate it. Great. Thank you, mr. Perry. That will place this on item 10. 2358 fillmore street. Thises a conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. Planning domestic staff. Planning domestic staff. Planning Department Staff. Were looking at a liquor store doing business as vefsh wine in the upper fillmore Zoning District and a 40x height bulk district. The tenant space plans to operate with a type 21 abc license and those conditions are available for you in the staff report and they soon plan to apply for a type 86 license allowing onsite instructional tastings in the space. The tenant space measures approximately 810 square feet and was previously occupied by a shoe store doing business. And the space is located in a twostory commercial building with the only other ground floor tenant space being occupied by a Womens Clothing store doing business as curve and there are offices above. This is the second location of verve wines, the first being in the city. The Department Recommends approval of the draft motion with conditions. This concludes my presentation. Im available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor . Welcome. You have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is dustin wilson, im one of the partners at verve wine. Just a little background on myself. I was a sommalier and various restaurants around the country. Nice restaurants here in San Francisco, new york as well as colorado. Verve wine we start add little over a year ago and is in the neighborhood of tribeca. We claim to be a highquality retail store and the majority of manhattan and some times beyond. Were very much looking forward to the community of lower pack heights and providing a great value to that community through a beautiful store front which i believe you may have seen the conditions. A wellcure rated list of highquality wines, not just expensive wines, but across all price ranges. Wine education, as weve mentioned, as well as providing high level genuine and warm hospitality to our customers in the neighborhood, which stems from my personal experience from being if restaurants for a long time. We feel we bring a unique perspective on wine and also the Retail Experience in wine. Just giving our backgrounds in the Restaurant Industry as well as our Network Within the Wine Industry from decades combined deck as of years of experience. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Wilson. So well open this item up for Public Comment. That was you and richard warren, you have a comment. Youre also with the project sponsor. Ok. Any additional Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . Commissioner rich arts . Since im the one that up here that likes wine the most [laughter] i read with great interest this packet. I think it is an interesting concept. A log arithms seem to run the world anja wait to see what you pair me with. I move to approve. Second. Thank you, commissioner, on that motion to approve this matter. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously. 60. Commissioners, a imgooing to place this on item 11 for 2017. 4068 18th street. This is a conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. Kathleen campbell. Planning Department Staff. The item before you is a request for conditional use authorizing activities, abc license 75 brew pub. Without an existing fullservice restaurant doing business as lark, at 4068 18th street, located within castro street neighborhood commercial district. The project would allow the applicant to seek a type 75 license from the California Department of alcohol beverages. The license would permit the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits on site consumption if association with the restaurant. Plus the operation of a brewery micro brewery. The existing tenant space measures approximately 1500 square feet and the size would not change as part of the project. Minor tenant improvements are associated with the brew station. Since publication of the case report, the department has received four letters of support from the public. And a petition of support with
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.