No, i wasnt. But i am very familiar with that section of the Building Code and thats been an enormous frustration. As a retired c. P. A. , im used to opining, but opining on financial matters. I get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103 a . I think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, its important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. Thank you for explaining that. The question i think is a real question. I would like to have an answer to it. We may not have that answer today. I would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. Thats the only comment of where i have Common Ground with your comments. I personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. But the building as a replacement building is too large. That does not mean the replacement building has to be identical in place, but it has to meet the intent of the general plan objectives relative to a certain neighbor fit. And i do believe the ask by the commission to add an a. D. U. Is also correct. But where we are not in sync is where that building has an opportunity to operate. Where we are negotiating of number of square feet simply by the expression of massing seems to be too large to meet the objective and fit with the remaining buildings on hopkins street. Ill speak next. Clerk commissioner fung. Just as a point clarification. What theyre proposing is to not have that short stair and to raise that level of that entry higher, which then prevents it probably from being able to connect between the two levels. The question for me and i didnt sit through some of the extensive hearings that occurred on the previous is that what was approved was approximately 3,000 square feet that went through the entire process. That was an addition, an alteration on top of this existing structure. So the question is whether this proposal of approximately 4,000 square feet. 3,000 lets say roughly for the main unit and a thousandsomething for the a. D. U. , whether there is a correlation then between what staff has seen as the desires of this commission to add a. D. U. S onto residential projects. Therefore, is that 1,000 square feet a. D. U. In addition to what had been roughly approved previously and whether then the size would be allowed by this commission. Theres no doubt that theres no guarantee that an a. D. U. Here would ever be rented. Its also a question of whether an a. D. U. Here would be affordable on any marketrate basis. Staff has gone to Great Lengths to do what they can in resolving what was a difficult situation. And at this point im prepared to accept their recommendation. So lo and behold, finally it makes sense why the section of the Building Code that we always keep citing doesnt apply. Ive done a search and been asking this question over and over. I find this information sheet dated june 22, 2015, which is right after all the demolition things and our joint d. B. I. Planning commission, it talks about the demolition of a building you need to require the entire demolition of the foundation. Thats where its at. Nobodys ever told me that in all these years, but its buried somewhere and thats what everybody keeps citing. I think we really need to take a hard look at that. It was a source of frustration for me and a lot of my fellow citizens for an awful long time. The other thing is i think we need to be consistent as a commission. We got rid of a part of a building that was built exceeding the plans that were submitted. This would be another candidate. Its an illegal demolition under the planning code, and i would offer this commission that we should just restore the building massing to what it originally was and ask for a building to be of the size to hows a family. I would throw that out to the commission and see what the other commissioners think. I would pick column number 2 here, existing prior to construction as the reference Square Footage, just like we did with all the other ones. So i would agree with that. I mean, i think it both kind of meets the spirit of what i think is the code in the d. B. I. Code, but it also kind of works from a planning standpoint on this site. So again, i dont want to take that out of the a. D. U. I think we can live with some. I get the fact that they were trying to elevate that entryway. But i think theyre taking too much of the a. D. U. They would elevate that and add Square Footage into the a. D. U. You could take 5 feet in the back of this building and it would fit better on that lot and make for the samesized a. D. U. But i agree with commissioner richards. I think it should go back to the 3280. I think that fits with at least 1,000 square foot a. D. U. On the parcel and leave it up to planning to work with the project sponsor to reduce some Square Footage. But i would also want to eliminate the roof deck and expand the size or use access from the back of the house into the ground floor. Open space so we dont have a roof deck on the top because it gives the perception of more mass on this site. So a motion . Yeah, i would make this as a motion. Commissioner moore. Commissioners, would you please clarify the existing prior to construction, the 3280 square feet, were asking for that Square Footage now to include an a. D. U. . Of at least 1,000 square feet, the a. D. U. Must be that size and contain two bedrooms. So the a. D. U. Is not on top of the Square Footage, it is inclusive of it . Yes. I agree and would agree with that. Just that this project will not be able to do Corporate Housing. I accept. Sure. Can we do that . I dont know if we have a definition. This is a question for staff, whether they understand what has been discussed in this motion. Is there any questions on your part . So your motion is to approve a revised project at 3280 square foot which is the existing prior to construction situation, but included instead of a singlefamily two units with the unit being at least 1,000 square feet, no roof deck, and no corporate sorry, strike the Corporate Housing provision. Just given the fact that were not entirely clear through the chair, please. Okay. Just because were not entirely sure what a Corporate Housing is. Its only got two units. Why would you say on this one you were the motion maker no, i would like to make it clear on this. Im not going to muddy it up with Something Else on this point. Speaking about clarification, you talked about reducing the depth by 5 feet as part of your motion. I was just suggesting ways i thought this building was too big on the site. Its not just the fact that were bringing it back to 3200, which is in the spirit of d. B. I. s regulations, but it sits too big on this site. Thats one way you could bring it back to i think that would almost eliminate 750 square feet if you took off 5 feet from the back, you could get the samesized a. D. U. And four bedrooms on the top. I think there are other ways to do it. Its not part of the motion. [vote]. Does that answer your question . Were clear on the question. Commissioner, would you please comment on the parking space. Is that do you care about that with the other . No. So inclusive of the 3280 square feet, we would include a parking space . Correct. Director ran. I want to clarify. Without the roof deck i want to make sure were okay on open space. So as i understand it, if they pull the Building Back there would be enough space in the rear yard . Presumably. So rh1 requires 300 square feet per unit. So the rear yard will have enough space to suffice for the a. D. U. The current proposal with the roof deck and the front deck would be enough for that upper main unit. So the sponsor to clarify so to eliminate the roof deck they would have to increase the so if they both share access with the rear yard that jumps by 43 . We would need 1800 square feet of open space. If it either can suffice through a reduction of the top floor they could have a top roof deck or meet open space in a yard. I ask that we have an informational memo of what finally comes out from a design point of view so we in the public knows. Did somebody second your motion . Me. Yes, all right. If theres nothing further, theres been a motion thats been seconded to approve this project as modified limiting the gross Square Footage to 3,280 square feet, eliminating the roof deck, and requiring that the a. D. U. Provide a minimum of square feet with two bedrooms. [vot [vot [vote]. That motion passes 60. We will be taking 10 out of order at this time number 2019014759pca, allowing longterm parking of and overnight camping in vehicles and ancillary uses. This is a planning development. Today i will be presenting an ordinance proposing to amend the planning code to allow the longterm parking and overnight camping of vehicles and as well as ancillary uses at 2340 san jose avenue. I would like to provide colleagues from the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing with time to present to you. Welcome, supervisor. Its hot in here. Ill try and be fast. I appreciate the opportunity do you have air conditioning on your side of the building . Ive got a big window that i just open. Thank you for taking the time to hear this issue out today. Im just going to give you a little bit of background. About a year and a half ago, maybe almost two years ago, my daughter and i were out on Christmas Day. Santa had brought her a bike. We were going to teach her how to ride a bike. We pulled over to get into the park and i was absolutely taken aback by how many r. V. S and campers were there. They had come overnight. So called the department of homelessness, called the team, started asking questions. They used to have signs over there about the no overnight camping. We talked about getting those back up and they did do that, but all it really did was push the campers down to dewolk street. We had a conversation with f. M. T. A. The s. F. M. T. A. Commission said were not doing that. We challenge you to come up with a fair and effective policy how to deal with this issue. I worked with my colleague supervisor brown who shared with me that she actually lived in an r. V. For a significant amount of time when she was growing up and she said they didnt think of themselves as homelessness even though they were. It was a different level of classification of being in that condition. We came up with a policy. You all helped to approve that policy. Some people call it safe parking, but in a different way. The second piece of that was trying to come up with a location. In the meantime i think you saw the homeless county went up first time in a couple years. 70 of that increase is People Living in vehicles. So it wasnt something we experienced on Christmas Day two years ago, it was something that was happening all over the city. If you drive down or anywhere in the bay area, you will see these r. V. S and vehicles all over the place. So this is a growing phenomenon of our housing crisis. So we then were able to move the conversation forward to where we are today which is a site that will be used in the next year for Affordable Housing. Were building 130 units of Affordable Housing on this location that is scheduled, on track. Worked with the mayor. We just got an additional 25 million in the budget. So that project is happening. We thought given its location and proximity to public transportation, somewhat a little bit removed from the immediate neighbors. Its not right on top of peoples homes, its very visible and defensible, we put forward this plan. We worked with the department of homeless and Supportive Housing. Its currently used as parking for muni operators. We have found a location for those operators. But regardless of this was going to be a vehicle triage lot or not, that they were going to be displac displaced. So we feel happy that we were able to move and accelerate that conversation because they will have parking. And the reason parking is important for them is because many of them are commuting from the bay area and theyre coming in in the evening where theres not scatss to public transportation. This site that were proposing, youll see, can hold up to about 33 vehicles. Some of the space would be for storing vehicles. One of the challenges of getting people out of their vehicles is this is their only asset and they feel very reluctant to let that asset go. So if we have a space where they can store it and transition them into more permanent housing options, this provides that gateway. We will have two 24hour ambassadors and securities. It will have screening and washroom facilities. It will have an office space for onsite services. So thats kind of the broad strokes. Ill let the team talk to you about that. We have had two Large Community meetings, one about a month ago and one on tuesday. Weve taken a significant amount of feedback and made some adjustments to the plan, but we feel confident that given this crisis and the growing number of People Living in their vehicles, not just in r. V. S, but vans and cars now, we felt it was the appropriate time now more than ever we needed that. Since we are the First District and neighborhood in the city, we are going to prioritize those living in vehicles in our neighborhood first and we will work with the adjacent supervisors in their neighborhoods to have access. Folks can stay up to 90 days and at the discretion of the director that time can be extended. So we urge your support today. We appreciate you all putting this on the agenda. If and when this is approved, it will go to the board supervisor next month and it will be about a year, about october next year were looking to break ground on the Affordable Housing. So we have will had this for a year. It will allow us an opportunity to dive in deep and see what works. One last note as part of our Community Meetings we had a whole host of neighborhood leaders and residents. They were 100 bought into the program. Youre probably going to hear from some of them if theyve shown up. We wanted to be as thoughtful as we can be in this process. One last note is one of the biggest reservations from some of the folks in the neighborhood is if we do start to move people from the streets, more cars will follow them. Were working on the overnight parking once weve been able to offer an alternative. Any questions, im here for that, but thank you for the opportunity to present on this. Thank you, supervisor. Thank you. I have a presentation and i have some copies to hand out. I have a question for the supervisor. Before the presentation . I wanted to ask the supervise. Thank you for taking the lead in this really overdo of answering of questions that many of us are asking. How did you figure out how many cars are actually on the streets of San Francisco . The department of homelessness and Supportive Housing, they can talk a little bit about that, they went out block by block citywide that they did on individuals who are housed. So around i think the beginning of the year they came up with about 432 cars. They believe that number has increased a little bit since then. They did a point in time count. I assume that other supervisors are working on backup strategies with you on how to potential yes, let me say thank you for that question. Since weve talked about this and proposed this, other supervisors have come forward and said we have a smaller number of People Living in their vehicles. Its much more visible in other parts of San Francisco. So those supervisors have now said theyre in the process of looking for locations where they can do this. The reason that this site was ideal is its currently a parking lot. So you want to minimize the number of capital allocations we make. The board of supervisors added another 200,000 in the addback process. So we can do this program on a pilot basis over the next two years. There will be more supervisors and neighborhoods we will be proposing after this. Thank you. Thank you. Im the manager of policy and legislative affairs for the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing, and i will keep this brief as i know it is rather warm in here. First of all, i want to thank the supervisor and his staff for all of their leadership and work on this issue. We are excited and grateful for this project. So the vehicle triage center, San Francisco and the bay area are in the midst of a housing affordable crisis. There was a 2018 study that demonstrated that communities experience sharp increases in homelessness when median rent accounts for 32 or more of median income. San francisco is well above this threshold at 39 . That contributes to the rise in some of the increases weve seen. Twothirds of this increase is related to People Living or sleeping in vehicles overnight. The onenight count that was conducted in january counted 578 inhabited vehicles. That was january of 2018. We also do quarterly counts which are more informal for the city, and we estimate that number to be over 600. So it is certainly growing. So the proposed vehicle triage site will be managed by a supervisor who will provide 24 7 security as well as site management. We will be engaging with those who are already engaged. Were confident we can create a safe space to store vehicles as an incentive to engage the homelessness response system. We will be allowing a small amount of adults to remain on site. Families with children will be encouraged to utilize temporary shelters. We will provide support to get their vehicles operable. We will abide by a good neighborhood policy and this will hopefully be constructed in collaboration with our Community Housing project. We will provide the community with a phone number they can call with concerns. A little bit about design and tim