tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 12, 2018 6:00am-7:00am PDT
current planning that i do, but i have another project on pennsylvania that i got a notice on two weeks ago. so i pay attention to those projects, and the planning department needs to do this in long-term planning -- current planning and long-term planning i'm s nure communicate intensively well. so that is my concern. it's just pay attention, feedback, scope them out. 331 pennsylvania, which i think is continued to the 21st, is at 18 and pennsylvania. secondarily, when did the transit get named salesforce officially? it was named that last year? i guess if you have the tallest
building, you can dominate the skylines of the city. like zuckerberg hospital, every time i drive by that site, a 31-year-old should not be the name of that hospital who's paid enormous, millions of dollars for a long time for. that's my personal pie. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comments? seeing none, commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: maybe it'll be the sue hester transit center someday. this particular item very much exciting to me. i was a kid and playing f thinh sim city, what i eed playing. to susan, i used to work on this for a few years now. to boil that all down for a
couple minutes -- sorry, it's the late hour. this is a very technical piece and you were unable to get much more in depth, but thank you. i am a huge supporter. i think this is the first step of reallyetting some major transit to san francisco, to san jose to gill r to l.a., and eventually going under the bay to oryvil, and puts us right smack dab in the middle of the business and industrial corridor. for me, mission bay's as funen bece it's difficult to get over there. there's only a couple -- the san mateo bridge and 16 street, but this gives you a couple of different ways, so that's good.
when i'm traveling, i'm always fascinated by trains, whether in japan or europe or asia, when you have multiple tracks and multiple engines and no person has any idea which train is long distance, which one is short distance. i'm a huge supporter, and i will take commissioner mcgill's advice and start recommending the pennsylvania option and that we do have optioov forward. thank you. >> president hillis: thanks. commiser joson? >> commissioner johnson: i just want to echo thanking so much of the staff. susan, you always have this way of breaking down super complex information in a way that's exciting, super funny, and engaging. and i was also in japan recently, and really got to enjoy the train system there. my heart was a little broken
for wanting that for the of citian francisco and for our region, and so getting to see this plan come to light brings so much joy to me. ef taking a fact that we took unbound look at what's going to be best bothow ad in the future for our city and for the region. i think so often, we can short change what's possible because we don't do that, and that was a bold step to take, so i'm really glad to see that. and i think the result is a vision that is bold and that reflects good planning principles of flexibility, seamless collaboration across agencies, and really a focus on being flexible and resili we don't know what the future holds as far as transportation, but we do know we're going to need to be resilient for climate chgee going to need to fe for what happened in the region going
forward. really excited about this plan. thank you so much for your work. >> president hillis: oner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: also on board with this.at haps f g thanks for the hard work and great report. i think we should keep that tunnelling machine here as long as we can, send it to gear. electric transportation is the way to go, and as much as wehu to see the report, and looking forward to hearing more. >> president hillis: just a question on this. like, where's the state these days on this, just the overall thinking with caltrain and high speed rail? i know the governor was -- >> yeah. well, high speed rail is part of the larger state n agency. they are moving ahead. the next important step in this amongst many is what's called the joint operations plan
between high speed rail and caltrain. that will help us hone down the issue of the rail yard, how much of it needs to stay, how much of it can be moved. all thessues that susan got into, we need the operations plan to fully understand that in more detail. i will say that getting to the transit center is an integral part of the state's plan. h has been. it's part of the recently approved state rail plan that was put forward a few months all. all that said, the state is very much on board with this approach, but it's important for us as a city to put our preferred approach on the table and that's what this is about. 'cause that's not been -- to be fair, pennsylvania has not been the official plan yet for high speed rail, so it's important for uso make it clear that is our preferred approach and to make sure that's part of the thinking going forward here, and that's the wh-- the idea e
here. >> president hillis: that definitely makes sense. just an enormous change in benefit not just to san francisco but the entire state. the slide where you're showing the connection to l.a. and beyond, to sacramento, it's huge. it will not just allow us to grow and continue to grow and meet the populatemaion d here, but go beyond and get density elsewhere in the state. we complain about a lot that others aren't doing their part, but this will be a tremendous help to allow them to do that, so thank you for this, and we look forward to continuing to hear more on it as we go along. 2026 doesn't actually sound too far away, so hopefully, we can get it done in that time frame. >> absolutely. thank you. >> president hillis: any additional comment? no? ll, thank you allor f y work. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that'll place us on 14 a and b.
[agenda item read] >> good evening, president hillis, commissioners, cory teague, planning department staff. we have two items before you, presentation and informational action item. i wanted to quickly give you an introduction and background. most of you were on the board when this was adopted, but it has been a little bit of time. considering the late hour, i'm not going t do a deep dive, but just quickly remind this project was adopted in 2015 and 2016. the first part was the invest piece, where we took the
tran impac development fee, the oldest impact fee in the city and kind of upgraded it and also increased it to include residential uses. then, we had the aligned phase where we phased out level of service as environmental transportation review and converted it as the state is doing to vehicle miles traveled, and then, what we branded the shift component or the transportation demand management or t.d.m. program. as it sounds, the concept is to shift people's transportation out of single occupancy vehicles a other more sustainable modes. again i'm not going into a deep dive into the program, but just quickly, the singular focus of the program is really v.m.t. reduction, and for individual projects, generally speaking, the more parking the project provides, the more points they have to achieve, but there are lots of measures on the -- on
the menu, and what that does is provide flexibility for projects to pick the measures that work best for them, and then certainty for that project knowing that as long as they meet their point total, tre g t b compliant. this is one of if not the most kind of comprehensive and robust t.d.m. programs in the country, and because of that we did have to hire staff, which we're very happy about that. one other thing to quickly point out is between planning commission adoption of the t.d.m. standards in august 2016 and the board of supervisors approval in february of 2017, we did have to work more with stakeholders and supervisors on some of their issues, and the standards were amended by the planning commission previously, and the program overall was amended to kind of create this one year phase in to kind of grandfather some projects in so they didn't have to meet all of the -- all of the target points right
away. and the thought behind that was that because this was such a large new program, that both the city and staff and the development community needed about a year to really allow the program to phase in before it became 100% operational so that we can make sure we made any of the tweaks that we needed. after that one year, it calls for us to come back and provide a report on that first year and how implementation is going today and if there are any additional amendments that we would propose, and so that's what we are here for, and i will turn it over to audrey harris who is the staff that we promoted to fill this position for t.d.m. performance manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners. as cory just mentioned, my name's audrey harris. senior planner with the planning department. i'm here to give a brief report on the transportation management or t.d.m. program,
and i'll also be presenting on proposed amendments, as well, reflecting on feedback in the first year of implementation. the field is broad with varying perspectives and strategies. this program is a development focused program with a specific goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled. it builds in transportation options in the form of t.d.m. pleasures. physical measures, incentives, information and resources that support more sustainable trips and travel havior. the more off street parking a project proposes, the more t.d.m. measures are required to be implemented on a project site. the program is designed to make it easier for new employees, residents and visitors to get around, and each measure is included in the t.d.m. program is intended to reduce vehicle
miles travelled unless provided by the property owner. as i mentioned briefly, the t.d.m. program is a unique program. it is a program that is developed to be nimble and responsive. it is compromised of two key elements, the first is section 169, and the second being the t.d.m. program standards themselves, which provide more details information about the specific t.d.m. measures for projects to employ. as cory mentioned before, the t.d.m. program standards were first adopted by this planning commission on august 4 of 2016, and the planning code section 169 that references the t.d.m. program standards were made
effective by the board of supervisors on march 19 of 2017. the planning code requires the planning department to prepare a t.d.m. report one year after the program became effective to analyze the implementation of the program and to discuss any amendments to the program standards during that time. this report reflects information gathered between march 19, 2017 and march 18 of 2018. this report also roughly aligns with the phase in adopted as a part of the program which gradually increased the t.d.m. requirements until full compliance was required all projects filed on or after january 1 of 2018. this goal of the phase in requirements were to provide about a one year to allow the public development community and the planning department staff to better -- better time
to incorporate and prepare for full implementations a w program. all projects that submitted their first development application on or after january 1 of 2018 are subject to meeting 100% other target points. for projects that submitted their first development application between september 4 of 2016 and december 31 of 2017, only 75% of their target points are required. and for projects that submitted an environmental evaluation application on or before september 4 of 2016, only 50% of the target points are required. the code defines the t.d.m. program's applicability for development falling into four categories. needed, filed, finalized, and occupied.
out of 69 files, 66 were subjected to 50%, 19 were subject to 75, and one was subject to 100%. these figures are actually corrected fro the staff report, which indicate different numbers and will be updated at the end of this hearing. but for the vast majority of the t.d.m. plans that are subject to 50% of the requirements, they will meet their target primarily by employing the measures that are required by the planning code. those projects are all still under review and are preparing for construction and have not yet reached their preoccupancy monitoring and reporting phase of the program. by the end of this reporting period, three projects had their t.d.m. plans recorded as notice of special restrictions but none of them have started construction, nor have any been deemed occupied. it is also worth noting that for some projects that sought
approvals during the period after the t.d.m. program standards were adopted by the planning commission but before the planning code section 169 was made effective, the planning department wanted to make sure that these projects still met the requirements of the program in some way and because these projects were not technically subject to the t.d.m. program, the planning commission adopted specific conditions of approval, requiring certain levels of compliance. although these 12 projects do not have formal t.d.m. plans, they are still subject to the monitoring and reporting requirements of the program. over the course of the first year, staff gathered feedback on the program, the applications and forms, and the implementation procemro city staff and pct sponsors. generally speaking, the program's requirements were achievable, and the processes were manageable. during the adoption hearings,
there was some concern about the difficulty for smaller residential projects to implement the program. there have been 17 so far, and these residential projects hav up to about 24 dwelling unit no issues have arisen related to these projects acheefg a t.d.m. with their appropriate point targets, and at that time we also heard concerns for larger projects with significant amounts of parking. the program standards were amended for the first time by the planning commission in january 2017 in part to address both of these concerns. the department did receive additional concerns about the t.d.m. project's impact on larger projects just this past week which i'll briefly touch on a bit later in the presentation. during the t.d.m. program creation and adoption period, the issues of if and how transportation that work companies or t.n.c.'s should be
included in this program was raised. program staff emphasized there was no data to indicate that t.n.c.'s reduce vehicle miles traveled from individual development projects. last year two studies were released by the san francisco county transportation authority on t.n.c.'s. one found that t.n.c. trips accounted for approximately 20% of all localnd daily v.m.t. another stated that there are still no specific t.n.c.'s policy to reduce congestion. as such, no t.n.c.'s are include index this program. moving forward, program staff will return to this commission every four years on the same timeline as the sf eta's county transportation plan is released to present again on the monitoring of the t.d.m. program and the individual t.d.m. plans in more detail.
in addition to these types of information i just reported on, these reports will also cover rates of compliance, updates on research and trends in the t.d.m. field, and updates on engagement and the program's implementation. by monitoring this on an ongoing basis, this will service as a basis for the implementation of the program, but also for improving the program to respond to the needs of the city as well as research and new technologies to come and to ensure that this program removes nimble, responsive. and to conclude this informational part of this presentation, i'd like to share some of the highlights staff worked onto better incorporate and prepare for the full implementatitheew program. as cory mentioned, the department hired dedicated
staff, forms, applications, and templates necessary for the implement indication were purchase published, the procedures to the monitoring and reporting phase of the program were developed, departmentstf engaged in various trainings on the details of the program, and update to the program's technica justification document to include amendments from past hearings was published. program staff explored andill continue to explore updates to the program based on research and outreach. the on-line t.d.m. tool that calculates a project's point targets was refined and given a new make over. improvements to the user interface of the program's webpage were made to focus on the implementation, and last year, the t.d.m. pgram garnered attention and appreciation from other jurisdictions and organizations, most notably receivingrds from the american planning association and the association for commuter transportation. and before i move onto the
second half of this presentation, i wanted to show some updates to the t.d.m., however, this commuter is blocking the webpage, so i'll show you the webpage and how to get to the t.d.m. tool. so just navigating quickly through the web, it starts off with just an druktory paragraph. and then -- introductory. this is where you would click
on the t.d.m. tool, so you would enter a project's description, the number of accessory parking ces, and it would calculate a target point for you. and en, along with the t.d.m. tool that i wanted to show you, that each of the t.d.m. measures are hyperlinks to the fact sheets that indicate what the t.d.m. measure is about, how -- the different options you can choose from and how to meet the requirements. and then, there is a map of all the t.d.m. plans in the city thus far, and then, at the end, you'll see monitor and reporting for which you'll find a link to this staff report. but i highly encourage you to play around with the tool. it's pretty great.
okay. for the second half of this, what i have before you is a set of proposed amendments to the t.d.m. program based on feedback from the first year of i ev implementation. the planning commission, i want to remind you has sole discretion over the substantive amendments, while minor amendments can be approved by the planning director or designee. this t.d.m. program is meant to be nimble, responsive, and up to date. the purpose of these updates will be to reflect new finding on the efficacy of the measures on the t.d.m. menu or for measures not appearing in the menu. the staff report before you outlines both substantive and
min minor entdm including correction to text references and clarifying implementation requirements of the t.d.m. program requirements and standards. and speaking of corrections, again in exhibit a within the minor amendment section, there's one edit so the contact name, the last name should be spelled p-a-i-n-e and not p- y p-a-y-n-e. for the next part of this presentation, i will go over the substantive amendments. for reference, a summary of these are on page 3 of the staff report, and the amended language is in exhibit a of the draft resolution. based on feedback gathered back in january of 2017, we heard a concern that the active one
improved walking conditions measure was too challenging to achieve. this t.d.m. measure requires a property owner toplete etsca improvements to make the public walkway convenient, safe, and attractable to each of the persons walking. there is two parts of the project, one that requires a streetscape plan, and one thats not. as it is now, if a project requires a streetscape plan, it has to provide ten additional streetscape elements or five additional streetscape elements plus two safety tools identified in the walk first toolkit. example o examples of this would be pedestrian first walk lines,
road lane dot, to name a w.fe five streetscape elements or at least two safety tools identified within the walk first toolkit. for each of these options, a project would get one point. after additional -- after additional internal review and consultation with interagency staff that works on streetscape design, it was found that the options provided were indeed overly challenging and needed greater flexibility. we're proposing to amend this measure to expand the number of options available to select and to generally lower the threshold for each option. in addition to the streetscape and pedestrian improvements required for large projects within the planning code, a developer would be required to provide one of the following: five additional streetscape elements for option a,
streetscaping adjacent and beyond the project site for option b, or at least two safety tools identified in the walk first toolkits, option c, and if a project does not require a streetscape plan, a developer would be required to just provide the streetscape and pedestrian improvement perthe planning code. each of these options would be available for one point, but to be clear, only one point could be selected for this measure. and the maximum point value for this measure would continue to be one. however, these proposed amendments do provide more flexibility in fullling the t.d.m. measure. this is for the second t.d.m. measure. developers of very large projects provided feedback that the differences between the requirements of the active two bicycle parking options were disproportionately allocated for the residential land use
category compared to the categories of the other land uses. under the current requirements, the difference between option a, the planning code, compliant bicycle parking and option b more than doubled the amount of class one bicycle parking spaces required by the project over 100 dwelling units. as of now, option a requires one class 1 bicycle parking space perdwelling unit, up to 100 dwelling units. option b requires oness lae bicycle space perone dwelling unit. option c requires 1.5 class one bicycle parking spaces perunit. we're proposing to amend this measure to more proportionately allocate the number of class one bicycle parking spaces required for residential -- for projects of the residential land usecategory. option a would stay the same,
as it is required by the planning code. option b would change to require one class one bicycle parking space perdwelling unit, up to 100, plus one for every two dwelling unit above 100 dwelling units. option c would require one class one bicycle parking space perdwelling unit up to 100 dwelling units plus one perevery 11.33 dwelling units. and to put that all into context, consider a 200-dwelling unit project that wants to see what implementation for class 1 bicycle parking spaces would look like. as of now that residential project would need to provide 125 spaces for option a, which is required by code, 200 spaces
for option b, and then 300 spaces for options c. we're proposing again to amend this measure to correct for the disproportionate increase in the amount of class one bicycle parking spaces required between options a and bor f residential projects. considering that same project, these amendments would affect the project in the following ways: it would need to provide 125 spaces for option a, again, which is required by code, 150 spaces for option b, 175 spaces for option c. these amendments provide greater proportionality between the implementations for all the measures -- sorry, for all the options of this measure for the residential land use category. as i mentioned the beginning of this presentation, staff received a letter this past
tuesday evening on behalf of kilroy realty corporation commenting on the t.d.m. program proposed amendments. the commission received feedn this e-mail. to a degree, the proposed amendments addressed some of their concerns thelanning commission is welcome to schedule future informational hearing to discuss the issues in the letter, and others that may potentially come up. one of the unique things about this program is that amendments can be proposed to the planning commission at any time. in conclusion, staff recommends approval of the substantive amendments to the active one and active two measures of the t.d.m. program standards. that concludes my presentation, and i along with staff are available for any questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? sure. >> good evening, commissioners. chloe angelis from reuben,
junius and rose on behalf of the flower mart. i'll go fast. we shared some concerns about the central soma grandfaering package. we appreciate your recommendation to retain 75% t.d.m. grandfathering for central soma projects with filed applications, which is a huge help to the plan area projects that have been counting on that grandfathering throughout the planning process. in formulating the t.d.m. plan for the flower mart specifically, the high costs and unedictability of a number of program measures have been clear, and we e-mailed you about those measures earlier this week. first, the lack of proportionality for large projects. it requires the same number of spaces for two different projects, though there are some points awarded based on the neighborhood parking rate that
provide some relief. this puts -- puts larger projects at a competitive disadvantage to smaller projects that are over parked by comparison. second, several of the existing t.d.m. measures la mercmechanisms toen -- mechanisms to ensure that the program intends. for example, the bike repair benefit could only be available or we would like it to only be available to employees who have applied for access to an on-site bike storage room, in other words, those who actually ride a bike to work. [please stand by for captioner switch]
it's spot on and i have to adinit that i found request reasonable because i think that one can be overly rigid in terms of numbers and when she mentioned for the difference between 50,000 square feet and 100 parking spaces which is 500 units and a hundred parking spaces it became pretty clear that we need to take a step back here and redefine what the realities are. and with an increase of other bicycles and other -- i don't want to say scters, oops -- which are obviously still hanging out, i believe that we have other alternatives to supplement with what is actually provided on-site and to find more flexible ways to encourage people to join multimodal alternatives and to deal with a more flexible interpretation of
this access. and so it's a great piece of work, thank you. and i look forward earing about it in four years. >> president hillis: is there a motion? >> what are we motions? >> president hillis: to adopt the amendment. >> i'm sorry, i am tired. yes, a motion to adopt the motion for the record. >> second. >> president hillis: on that motion as presented by taf commissioner fong, and commissioner koppel. commissioner richards. it missioner president hillis. s unanimous, -0. >> clerk: item 15 to june 28th and placing us on item 16a and b, and and at 1420 hampshire street. a request for variance.
>> good evening, commissioners department staff. this is a conditional use authorization for proposal for 1420 hampshire street. the an enlargement of a residential care facility for the elderly that establishes 89 beds and construct a two story vertical addition on top of the one story overbay. and with the height of approximately 33 feet at approximately 31,500 square feet in the area. the project would also unreake interior restoration and interior remodel. the project will relocate the existing residence to other nearby residential care facilities. given the nature of this property the project is requesting a variance for section 132 of the planning co code. since publication of the packet the department has received two inquiries for the project from
next-door neighbors, both expressed concern with a accessibility and trash facilities. planning the approval the project will be approved by the department of building inspection to ensure that a.d.a. compliance is complied for. copieses of this document are available for your review today. the department staff recommends approval with conditions. specifically, the project is consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and the mission area plan, and the project features an appropriate view and expansion of the use that is encouraged by the area plan for this location. the project sponsor is present and has prepared a short presentation and i am available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. >> president hillis: thank you very much. president sponsor. >> hello for the third time, jeremy shaw, i'm going to keep this fairly abbreviated. we are here because this has
been a care facility since 1968. and it was currently 33 beds and an r2 zoning and we're proposing to add 56 additional beds and these are care facilities that we need many, many more of throughout the city. and this is going to just take a smeal dent ousmall dent out of . but it's a two-story addition, on top of the additional building and as natalia said, the residents will be moved to our operators other facilities during the construction. and then the other portion is the front -- the back variance. and so apologies, it's hard to see but our neighbor to the left is actually at max 130 feet from the street. they have a kind of a bizarre walkway out. so to have a code performing setback would be 15 feet which in this scenario we think that
it's more important to have most of the massing on the corner. that's where we're at, thank you. and i wanted to have a few more words... >> commissioners, my name is paul. i'm the project sponsor. before i go any further i want to make clarification. nursing care is for people who stay there with medical staff. and there's housing of elderly that need help. and there's elderly care or senior care, and so everybody knows what's going on. but, unfortunately, under the current code they put a lot of
burden on the people waiting for the care home. they don't classify them as housing. amazing, they treat them as office. i'm very frustrated. nowadays currently the city only has 3,000 beds, the whole city. and half of it is the so-called higher up, where the family, they have their own apartment but a lot oft they can't afford that. we get less and less care. why? (indiscernible) so labor, we cant find good... we have to
do something about it. about four months ago i get a call from public health, asked me, mr. lee, what can we do to makeu that the center is operating. and you know what, the first thing that came out of mymouth, get rid of the city planning. it is. i am very frustrated. takes me more than two years for two simple additions. how are we going to encourage people to do this, impossible, right? and, lastly, i hope that you accept my sincere apology if i'm
offensive because it is because i am frustrated and i am concerned. thinking about 15 years later when the baby boomers which are the age of 90... what to do with that. i am concerned. >> thank you, thank you. so we'll open this up to public comment. >> i'd like to thank mr. lee because we have a lot of people in this city that are trying to figure out how to abandon people and make money. i swear this is one of the good projects. the planning department should look at these kind of cases and not the things that you're weirdly doing. we have inefficiencies in the
planning department. it's not caused by the public, it's caused by the planning staff doing its own interpretation. if you can't figure out how to expedite affordable housing, conditional uses like this, you should resign, every one of you. yohau two weeks ago the case on danis avenue which was an abuse of senior housing provisions and you rightfully voted the way you did. this one, vote in favor of it. it's hard to be an advocate for housing because you get a reputation as being a jerk. i am willing to be a jerk to ffightor affordable housing. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, any additional public comment? closing public comment. commissioner moore. >> the city-wide health care plan has great efficients in this type of care facility and it would have been a tougher
discussion for me today had we not continued at 321 pennsylvania where we ar basically taking 42 beds off of the market while we're only adding 33 here. so there's a deficit as we are speaking except the pennsylvania project got continued. and in that particular case we are converting 44 bed facility -- 42 bed facility into 7 luxury residential units. it's hard to swallow. this is a fine project. i was curious if it was require a neighborhood notification and whether or not the neighbors are supportive becaused see anything here. but i'm in support of the project and hope that in the neighborhood that it f nth right reception and the right neighbor support. >> commissioner melgar?
>> i'm supportive of this project and i have worried about your facility for a few years, our organization runs summer programs at ross playground across the street. dingi have been looking at that nd thinking, you know, i hope that this as a business can survive because it's such a much-needed service. so i'm wholeheartedly supportive and i hope that you get it done quickly. thank you. >> make a motion? >> i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing nothing further, commissioners there's a motionsh conditions. commissioner fong? commissioner moore, commissioner richards. commissioner melgar. commission president hillis. so moved. the motion passes 7-0. >> decline grant of varnce. >> clerk: item 17 is continued and placing us on 18, a, b, and
conjunction and it calls to have review and comment on proposed district dignations. which will be afforded along with the commission -- the recommendations, the board of supervisors. articles 10 and 11 in the planninge asked this commission to provide comment on the proposed designations to address the consistency with policies in the general plan and the priority of policies section 101.1, the provision of housing to meet the city's regional housing needs allocation and near transit corridors and to identify any amendments in the general plan that may be necessary and to evaluate the relationship with the sustainable community strategy for the bay area. and today's items include the article 10 landmark designation of the warehouse historic district and the two properties in article 11, and the conservation district and the designation of the article 11 mint conservation district. and today's items are identified
through the surveys conducted in soma over the last several years and they are rare and exceptional examples of properties with strong cultural associations and post-1906 earthquake and fire reconstruction and architectural design. the findings and their context statements served as technical studies used to inform the development of the policies to protect and promote the neighborhood's cultural resources and supporting the preservation of buildings and features for the legacy of the neighborhood. throughout the development of the central soma survey, public outrch efforts were conducted in conjunction with the development of the central soma plan. and through notification and the historic preservation hearings, we have received several inquiries with a mix of questions and concerns related to the designation. and they attended h.b.c. hearings and the staff have held a number of meetings and spoken with the owners to address their concerns and to address the
financial benefits of those designations, including the mills act, and transferable rights and the designations such as permits to alter and the requirements of the certificates for appropriateness. and in your packet are letters from property ownerships to the h.b.c. regarding the proposed designations. and provided for you today -- let me grab it -- i have a copy of an opposition letter from a property owner from clyde and crook who sent in the letter after the packets were assembl assembled. and as noted the three items before you today are the designation croks and clyde warehouse district and two properties to the article 11 conservation district and the designation of the article 11 mint mission conservation district. each of the items is unanimously supported by the h.b.c. with
hearings through march through may ofhis year. the clyde and crooks warehouse house district is founded by bannon and is named for the two streets wholly within the district. crooks, and clyde, along with the two to three story warehouse districts unique to the district. and the distr is particularly significant because it is one of the lastremaining enclaves of small-scale frame and masonry buildings iht construction following the 1906 earthquake and fire. this represented the 19th century development of soma and the center of production in san francisco and the maritime commerce along the west coast. and, lastly, the building is to a construction connection sneak and are a range of styles with 25 lot ofs in 1913 to the art deco industrial buildings such as 224 townsend completed in 1
1935. and next the rticle 11 de designations before you today with the addition of two properties, and that the conservation district and the conservation district. article 11 is a result of the adoption of the downtown plan and the city's districts are located in c-3 zoning districts. it was among the first designated under the downtown plan and it's the largest conservation district in the city. mint district will be designated fort irst time since the nean 80s. the two additions to 55 fifth street and the hotel langersham at 66799 can have sixth street and 899 mission street are adjacent to the southern boundary and are near the edge of the redevelopment area. their height, scale and massing along with their fine classical renaissance and gothic detailing have a direct relationship with
the character and the historic context, and making them a natural addition to the district. and the new mint mission conservation distr occupies the transitional area between large-scale commercial uses on market street and the industrial functions historically located of the style. and the 22 properties in the mint mission district are a mix of contributory properties. and article 11 buildings have numerical rankings and buildings 1 and 2 are often monumental in scale with elaborate ornamentation and contributory or category 3 and 4 are smaller-scale structures with less architectural detail and decoration. mint mission is comprised of industrial, commercial and residential hotel properties between 1906 and 1930. and the district is a rare remaining enclave of this type of building types and it's representative of the 1906 earthquake and the fire reconstruction period.
examples of the range of the district's commercial buildings include the multistory candy factory and the 966 mission, neighboring two stor -- the neighboring two story commercial structure. and three residential hotels are locted in the district and include the 1915 chronicle hotel notable for its brickwork and diamond-shaped tiles and the piedmont hotel and it was constructed in 1907. examples of the category 1 an 2d buildings in the mint mission include the 1907oat hotel, the only building in the district eligible for a change in designation to category 1 for significant. and the designated category 1 or 2 significant buildings including the 1906 remedial loan association and it's all pictured here. in closing the article 10 and 11
designations are consistent with the eight priority policies that are set forth in 101.1 of the planning code and fulfill the policies in the central plan to recognize and to protect the soma cultural resources. and the policies include to have recognition and the well-being of the neighborhood's cultural resources and protecting heritage properties and designations through article 11 of the planning code. and supporting the buildings and features that reflect the industrial and arts legacy of the neighborhood. and if approved by the board of supervisors a number of benefits that are tied to that designation, including eligibility for transferable development rights, the mills act and use of the california sirc building code. this co concludes my presentatin and i am happy t answer any questions. >> president hillis: we'll open it up to public comment. miss frey you want to comment? no, all right. commissioners, commissioner richards.
>> my mike is way over here. oh, i guess that a couple of things ring out. first is the consistency of the 10 party policies of the planning code to protect the preservation elements coming hopefully soon that we'll be able to put these to that. i think that with the development pressure as it is in the city, th it'simportant e w recognize historic buildings. obviously, these are already one of the individual forms as well as the planning staff recommendation and a couple of letters that we did receive protesting that we're absolutely in full support of, supporting our cultural and our architectural heritage. one question that i do have is of the letter that you just handed in. this person talks about they're being a contributor and i looked at the map and i don't believe that 340 is in the district, is it? >> it is. and there's several non-contributing buildings in clyde crooks.
i believe that is -- >> i mean, i used to walk down lusk street and i'm not sure that it's in business or not.it. and i used to go, look that the place, it's like a time capsule. and i had no idea that the status was going to be moved to an article 11 district. and i'm happy with that. it's very warranted. great work. >> anything else? i think that we're just -- no, we're just commenting. >> there are actually draft resolutions for your adoption for recommendations with comments. if you so choose to include any further comments in the resolutions and there's three separate retions and one for each of the districts. and i move to adopt recommendations for approval to the board of supervisors on all three. >> veoodry g on that motion to adopt the recommendations as