winning arguments. i don't know, i'm not a coastal policy expert. this is my first time ever hearing something on this subject before. um, and the other thing that i've, i've continued to think about. and this isn't anyone in this room's fault. um, it's ultimately, uh, you know, a holistic city failure over the course of a time period longer than i've been alive, uh, since the first, uh, since the coastal act was passed in 1986. um you know, the fact that san francisco has not amended this significant. since 1986, um, is pretty alarming. and again, it's not anyone in the room. tonight's fault that that's the case. it's just, you know, kind of. it's been almost 40 years. and the coastal and the coastal act is a really important thing under california policy. and the fact seems to be that, um, you know, san francisco's kind of ignored it.

uh, that's that seems to have been the, the primary, uh, mechanism is, is ignoring it. uh as long as they can and again, not saying not not putting this on anyone in the room tonight because it's not on you. um all we can do is move forward the best way we can. and that's that's that's all we've got as far as that goes. um, and i will also add that the 1986, uh, western. i'm again, sorry for getting acronyms. the, the san francisco implementation of this was drafted. so vaguely, um, and it is so out of date in so many ways that strict compliance with it is nearly impossible for anything. um, and i've, you know, i during the hearing tonight, i was looking up the, the state bill to exempt urban zones from, uh, from the coastal act altogether, which i think is a terrible solution. but again, outside of the scope of what we're talking about tonight. but, um, i could see where the drive for that comes from in

that it's, you know, i can't even imagine the complexity involved in trying to engage in good faith compliance with this act and this local implementation. it's just astoundingly complex to me. and i like to think i'm someone who likes to handle astoundingly complex problems. so um. i am relatively swayed by president lopez's facts and also what where commissioner swigs come out on this. um. i'm still willing to be swayed if commissioner trasvina can come up with some really solid findings, but i, i think i probably know where i'm voting. commissioner trasvina. i would note that it, uh, it goes back even earlier than 1986, goes back to 1970, 1974. and man by

the name of george mosconi, our state senator at the time, was a leader on the on the coastal issues, on environmental protection and he's gone and we've we've lost a lot in environmental protection over the years to the various, uh, administrations completely unrelated to the people here. but for tonight, uh, since we are talking about the coast, i, i, uh, i sense the tide moving out and, uh, perhaps earlier there might have been the votes to, uh, grant this appeal. uh, but i think from respecting my colleagues and, uh, respecting the all of the work that's gone into this tonight, uh, i will i will not vote to, uh, to deny the appeal. uh, but i, i think it's i think we're probably ready. ready to vote. i don't think commissioner eppler's absence, uh, will have any impact on this vote. thank you.

um, i'll just say a couple of quick things. um uh, first, i think with respect to the, uh, to rec and park, i do i do want to say that, uh, that i thank you for your testimony and, uh, i, i did see, uh, i think some sometimes, you know, we as, as a body, as commissioners may, may, um, expect certain things from the testimony. and if it's not there and we have, uh, you know, in a, in important matter of public concern with, with a lot of, of, uh, valid points from the appellants and a lot of you know, public concern being expressed, you know, frustrations can can arise. uh, i also like to, uh, kind of

abide by the policy of assuming good intention. and i did see, uh, a lot of effort to address, uh, our questions in, in real time. and so i appreciate that. and i appreciate your service to the city. and, um, and in cognizant that we're we're all part of a big city family, as corny as that may sound. but, uh, appreciate your, your, your presence here this evening and your service. um, the second thing i'll say is, um, you know, i'd be remiss if i didn't point out that, you know, back to the, the points that that commissioner swig made about, hey, we're in the city. uh, are are are these cries for help coming from, uh, and having those be in, in, you know, many respects, being related to, uh,

not entirely, but but a significant portion being related to traffic impacts. you know, that we have a representative from the sfmta here this evening. um, i guess we don't oversee all aspects of the sfmta's operations, but but i would respectfully be, uh, ask that that those those concerns, which i think are very valid, that they be taken into account and looked into to seriously, um, and if anything, like, like with some of the, um, some of the points that we discussed, uh, with the, with the previous matter, i would submit to my fellow commissioners that it may be something that we, we, we take up as something to agendize as something else that's surfaced before the board. but that is, is, uh, in my opinion,

probably outside of our jurisdiction in terms of the four corners of this permit. but maybe something that we would consider, um, uh, you know, presenting in a more formal way to the, to the relevant department. um uh, commissioner swig, i see you on the. sure. is the motion still in place? uh, commissioner, or did you make a formal motion? i don't think we have a motion. okay, then i'll make a motion. uh, first of all, with regard to park and rec, i love park and rec. i didn't like tonight. all right? i have great respect for park and rec. i enjoy the way the park and rec manages our many, many parks advocates open space. uh, takes care of golden gate park, takes care of dubose park, takes care of, uh, dolores park. takes care of the marina in front of me. uh, it's hard work. i see the hard work on day to day basis. i appreciate that hard work and so there's nothing that i said tonight that is meant to, uh,

dump on park and rec. i didn't like your presentation tonight, and i found some bias. that's just tonight. and that's just about the this item. but it is not to say that i don't love park and rec, and i don't love my city family members. and i have three sisters. i fight with them all the time. so you know, sometimes we have fights and i and i hope you will appreciate not necessarily agree because i don't i don't know i know that you guys don't agree, but that you appreciate my point of view and that i listen to you. and i just happen to disagree. so that's the that's the bottom line. so i'd like to make a motion that we deny the appeal. uh, and based on and uphold the findings of the, the planning department as they set forth with the compliance. i guess the required, uh, local coastal program. i think that's the proper that's close. thank you. close. not bad at 11:00 at

night. uh, okay. so we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeals and uphold the coastal zone permit on the basis that the project conforms to the requirements and objectives of the san francisco local coastal program. and with the adoption adoption of findings one through nine found in planning commission motion number 21437. on that motion, president lopez, commissioner. trevino. no. commissioner. vice president. lemberg. i okay, so that motion carries 3 to 0 and the appeals are denied. three one 3 to 1 one. i'm sorry. sorry. 3 to 1. it's getting late. it's 1107. uh, we do have one more item. thank you. everyone um, we do have one more item. item number six is the adoption of the board's budget. this is a discussion of possible adoption of the department budget for fiscal year 25. and 26. so so i'll. commissioners you've had

an opportunity to review it. uh given the late hour, i don't see we have any public comment here. do you have any questions for me ? the comment section? sure. um sure. go ahead. i just like to suggest that perhaps some funding in the budget allocated to provide training or professionalism training to this board on decorum and the treatment of city staff, because i was really upset by what i witnessed tonight. and i a lot of people were online too. so i hope that in the future the budget could consider ways to provide that kind of training so that something like this never happens again. thank you. thank you. is there any further public comment? i see someone raising their hand, uh, in zoom. okay. no, the hand is down. commissioners, did you have any questions or did you want to add anything? commissioner lundberg i just a quick comment. not

really a question. i just want to thank you. julie for your astounding, uh, attention to detail in preparing this, uh, in such a fashion that i don't actually have any questions about it. you're so good at your job, and we really. i really appreciate you. that's very kind. and i just want to say that i would be lost without alec because he is really you know, he's incredible. everything he does and gmr as well. we have an excellent staff and i am extremely grateful for all three of you and, and, uh, and you've made our job in approving this, uh, pretty simple in my opinion. well, thank you so much. it's very appreciated. so we do need a motion to adopt the budget. i move to adopt the budget. okay. on that motion, president lopez, a commissioner trevino, i commit . aye. so that motion carries 4 to 0. and the budget is adopted. and thank you so much.

okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for

thursday, february 15th, 2024. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. finally, i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. and at this time i would take i will take roll commission. president diamond here. commission vice president moore here. commissioner braun here. commissioner imperial here . commissioner koppell here. we expect commissioner ruiz to be absent today. first on your agenda, commissioner, is consideration of items proposed for continuous item one, case number 2023, hyphen 011077 pca

for the city wide expansion of allowable commercial restaurant and retail uses planning code amendments is proposed for continuance to february 22nd, 2024. further commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar item ten, case number 2022 hyphen 000438 drp for 320 frederick street a discretionary review is proposed for continuance to march 14th, 2024. i have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the items proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance s. again, you need to come forward, see, seeing none public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners. commissioner braun, uh, move to continue. items one and ten second. thank you, commissioners, on that

motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner braun, i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0 and place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff. so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing items two, a and b for case numbers 2023. hyphen 004486 hd and c for the property at 30 otis street. adoption of shadow findings and conditional use authorization. we've received a request from commissioner imperial to remove this from the consent calendar, and so we will take up that matter under the regular calendar, leaving item three,

case number 2023. hyphen 007557. see you at 2310 fillmore street. conditional use authorization. and my understanding is that commission president diamond will be recusing herself from this item. uh, leaving it to you, members of the public, to request that fillmore street be removed from the consent calendar. you need to come forward seeing none. public comment on the consent calendar is closed and it is now before you commissioners, uh, commissioners, i own some city bank bonds, so on advice of the city attorney, i need to recuse myself from this particular item, which deals with citibank. um, and formula retail. commissioner koppell, uh, move to approve item three, second. thank you. commissioners, on

that motion to approve item three, mr. aiona, do they need to vote to recuse me first or. it's an economic matter and it's not. it's a financial conflict. i don't think there's anything to vote on. okay. thank you. um commissioner braun, i, uh, commissioner imperial, i, commissioner koppell i and commissioner moore, i so move commissioners. that motion passes 4 to 0, placing us under commission matters. item four land acknowledgment. i'll be reading the land acknowledgment. acknowledgment today. um the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestor homeland of the ramaytush alone. who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all people who reside in their traditional

territory. as guests. we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item five consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 1st, 2020 for members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. seeing none, public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you commissioners commissioner imperial moved to adopt the minutes. second. thank you commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes. commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner capell i commissioner moore i commission. president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. item six commission comments and questions. if there are no

comments or questions from the commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item seven directors announcements. good afternoon commissioners. nothing from me. item eight review of past events at the board of supervisors. board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commission meeting yesterday. good afternoon. commissioners audrey maloney for erin starr, who is out today. we had a busy week at land use. there were two landmarks designations. the first was the grand theater at 2665 mission street. this land marking was introduced by supervisor ronen and unanimously approved by the historic preservation commission on november 15th of last year. the building was designed by g. albert lansburgh and s charles lee in 1940, and is account for association with the city's network of neighborhood theaters and as an excellent example of the streamline moderne style. the committee voted unanimously

to forward the landmarking on to the full board with a positive recommendation. the second landmarking at committee this week was for the sacred heart parish complex. this was initiated by the hpc and unanimously recommended by them on september 9th of last year. this item was continued to the february 29th hearing because supervisor peskin stated he would like to draft unspecified amendments to the ordinance. it was also a very busy week at land use for proposed ordinances that would amend the planning code. the family housing opportunity sub amendment that was introduced by supervisor engardio was up first. as you may remember, this item was continued last week because the amendments made at that hearing were considered substantive. during the hearing, supervisor peskin raised concerns about the amendment that would reduce the ownership requirement to one year if the property includes two or more units. he requested that the existing ownership requirements be retained and those existing ownership requirements are five years for properties with two or more dwellings and one year for those with one or fewer dwellings. staff tried to address supervisor peskin's concerns by noting that this amendment is

meant to mirror the same provision that has already passed in the housing constraints reduction ordinance. there were three public comments. most of them were to state confusion surrounding the different pieces of competing legislation and the lack of outreach. after taking public comment, the item was continued to the february 26th hearing. next with supervisor peskin, state mandated adu controls this ordinance is the duplicated version of the original file. the that duplication happened at last week's hearing, and then the duplicate was continued to this week's hearing to give the city attorney time to draft supervisor peskin's amendments. this duplicated file would make changes to the state adu program in order to incentivize the local adu program. those three specific amendments include one. retaining the two adu limit on hybrid adus, which i should note is going against hcd's october 2023 letter. uh, the second is amending the state adu program to also apply the objective. architectural review standards to listed and previously

determined eligible california register historic resources. and the third is amending the review timeline for the local adu program to 60 days from 120 days. those amendments were adopted unanimously, and the item was continued to the call of the chair. next up is the mayor and supervisor melgar's ordinance that would make residential density in our ncds to and rccs outside of our priority equity geographies, form based. this item was back at land use after a two week continuance at the hearing, both supervisor peskin and supervisor preston stated that they had requested amendments that were still being drafted by the city attorney supervisor. peskin said that he was concerned about the severity of heights that projects could potentially achieve under form based density when coupled with state density bonus programs. as such, his proposed amendments would not allow the parcels subject to this ordinance that use form based density to also utilize state density bonus, so pfizer preston is concerned that form based density without additional

affordability requirements is a giveaway to developers. as such, he requested that the city attorney draft amendments to sunset form based zoning in the areas proposed under the ordinance. after a period of three years, with the possibility that form based zoning could be renewed by the board in three years if inclusionary rates are also raised to an appropriate percentage. after these two concepts were introduced, chair melgar suggested that the item be continued until march 4th to give both the city attorney time to draft these amendments, and the supervisors to talk to constituents about these amendment concepts that continuance to march 4th past unanimously. lastly, at land use committee this week, we had supervisor peskin's ordinance that would reinstate numeric density controls in the downtown and eastern waterfronts. see two zoning districts. you heard this item on january 28th and voted to make two modifications. the first was to limit the ordinance to demo new construction projects in the jackson square and northeast waterfront historic districts, and the second was to exempt projects utilizing the office to residential adaptive reuse

program. in these districts from numeric density controls. supervisor peskin made amendments that were in line with the spirit of the commission's recommendations. he also made one additional amendment and that was to extend numeric density controls to a set of parcels that are in an area that is considered eligible to be added to the jackson square historic district. chair melgar stated that although she understands this ordinance is not running afoul of our obligations under the housing element, she is philosophically opposed to the idea of exempting historic districts from form based controls. while much of our other well resourced neighborhoods will be converting to form based controls. she noted that the areas proposed to revert to numeric controls are not priority equity, nor are they environmental justice geographies. she feared that this may set a dangerous precedent for other historic districts, or areas that are seeking to become historic districts to get out of their obligation to accommodate for new housing. supervisor peskin responded by stating that it was never his intention to allow heights in this part of the city to be as high as they can be,

which can now be accomplished given the new amendments to the state density bonus law. he is hoping that reverting numeric density to numeric density in these districts will prevent large towers along the waterfront and in jackson square . after taking public comment where there were two speakers in opposition to the ordinance and one in favor, the committee voted unanimously to adopt supervisor peskin's amendments. they then voted 2 to 1 to send the item, as amended, with a positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors. peskin and preston voted in favor and chair melgar was opposed. we're almost done at the full board this week, the code corrections ordinance passed its final read, and the downtown rail extension fee waiver passed its first read. that's the conclusion of the board report. thank you. thank you. i do not see the zoning administrator here to give you a report 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 subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. good afternoon, commissioners tom radulovich with livable city. yeah. here to talk a little bit more about why i think you should plan the city. um i, i've talked before about this, but, you know, land use planning and transportation planning are two sides of the same coin. and hopefully you're with me on that. like if you're not considering the one, then you're really not going to get the other one, right? um, so, so, um, you might say, well, we're doing the land use planning and other folks are going to do the transportation planning. so what's the problem? i would argue you're not actually doing land use planning. you have a lot of controls around land use, but it's not a plan. um, and, and i'd also point out that the other agencies that you think

might do transportation planning in the city aren't doing it. um we don't have a plan for our transit system. we don't have a plan for our rail system. we don't have a plan for a bus system. mta runs the systems. they are incremental, improving them. um, both of those are big jobs. but there's no plan and nor would it make a whole lot of sense for them to invest in a big plan until they know what's happening land use wise. so, for example, if you upzone the west side to build 100,000 units out there, they need to know that, right? that needs to be in their planning horizon as they're considering how much capacity we're going to need. what routes are people going to take, and that sort of thing. so they're not doing transportation planning, other big public realm agency, public works department, they don't plan either. i mean, they do projects and they maintain the public right of way. but again, both of those big jobs and they do those pretty well. but they do not plan nobody in there. there's no plan for streetscape. uh, there's no plan for greening the city. there's no plan for any of those things. nobody. the very few people even called a planner. there's no function called planning in the public works department. so on the transportation side, the public realm side, no planning is

happening over here. land use planning isn't happening in the way that it should. um, so what do you need to be thinking about? one is, you know, what do you actually need to plan? i think there's an argument, you know, kind of coming from jane jacobs. you can let users mix more than we have in the past. we can be a little more liberal mixing uses can be good. maybe uses should be innocent until proven guilty instead of the other way around. so, um, these can make neighborhoods more walkable, more economically diverse and so on. but there's a few big things you need to plan. one of them, i think, is where you locate offices. there's a lot of data around this. people don't walk very far on the work end of a transit trip. the data shows that transit ridership drops off about 1% every 100ft. so if you really want to have transit served office, you need to cluster it pretty closely around good quality regional, uh, public transportation. and we're not doing that. i mean, we have a lot of that done historically, a lot of millions of square feet of office or something like that. empty downtown. you also have hundreds of thousands of square feet of

office in really transit poor areas of the city. executive park, ship stick, etc. that's in the pipeline. so thinking. about being a little more disciplined about where you permit office, i think is one of the keys to getting this transport and land use balance. right. so so as you do your land use element, which i hope i've convinced you to do, you think about locations of office as one of the key things that you do need to control? thanks. hi good afternoon, georgia. um, on my february 12th email, i wanted to focus on the ongoing reverberations from the fact that the section 317 demo calques have never been adjusted, as the commission has the legislative authority to do under section 317 b2d, the commission will deal with the demo calc issue for the valley street project next week, but the other four in the email all recently on the market, three of them multiple times within the past decade, reflect the ongoing

reverberate from never adjusting the demo calques in the past decade, and this has implications for the two new citywide suds section 317 and the demo calques are still in the planning code, as is the commission's legislative authority to adjust them. i am particularly concerned with the priority equity geographies. sud, it seemed that the underlying intent was to protect these neighborhoods and shift development to the family housing opportunity. sud here is an anecdote from when i was in the open house for the alteration project that is selling for $8.5 million. i heard one real estate agent tell another that the only properties that could sell were single family homes, not multi units, and that actually lines up with the 2020 feasibility studies on multifamily housing from century urban. so so there may be even greater incentive to bypass the commission and get a ministerial review as an alteration than

ever before, particularly in the pegs and even on the west side. and then there is the whole issue of the second unit, whether it's added or it's a undo existing, which is in my email examples, and i don't have time to get into it. but i'm sure the commission is not naive and understands the issues. what it was the intent of section 317 tantamount to demolition values. it was to prevent alterations from turning into demolitions because the building code section 103 .3.2 was being skirted around and supposedly simple remodels became a ruse. so. section 317 was conceived to allow for reasonable remodels. if a family needed more space. but prevent the demolition of sound, relatively affordable, financially accessible housing, staff has said adjusting the calcs would just cause speculators to go up to the edge of any new threshold. if the values were reduced, and i think

that's great because because if that happened, less of the structure will be removed and more will be retained, and they won't be outcomes like the outcomes outlined in the february 12th email that i hope the commissioners and the staff had the opportunity to look at. and here's my 150 words for the minutes. and i gave director hillis an article from the wall street journal that i think should be of interest to all of you that relates to the speculation that may be going on now for the from the past ten years and the next ten years. thank you very much. if there are no other members of the public in the chambers, we'll go to our reasonable accommodations. requester uh, this is sue hester. i want to have the planning commission really think through. what? the noon start time. today's meeting is not. online on not on the

place. you can see it on tv because there is a wreck park meeting that goes on. there has been a couple instances in the past, relatively recent past where the meeting before you goes on past noon and they keep going. so the planning commission has power to adjourn. pardon me, amend its own start time. and i think sincerely ask you to do that. so people can watch and participate in the planning commission meeting remotely without accessing a code like i did to listen to it online, on the phone. pardon me. thank you very much. bye okay. last call for general public comment. seeing none. general public comment is closed and we

can move on to your regular calendar. commissioners. uh, and the only item under your regular calendar is items. two are items two, a and b for case numbers 2023 hyphen 004486 qd and chua for the property at 30 oto street. for your consideration to adopt shadow findings and the conditional use authorization. commissioners before lizzie comes up, i just wanted to introduce her because it's her first time at the commission or actually hearing an item. i think you've had 14 projects at the commission, but it's the first one that's been pulled off consent. so lizzie mao joined us this past april. she's working in our district six development review team. before joining the department, she was an assistant planner at urban planning partners, where she worked on local housing elements, housing policy implementation, and worked on community outreach for the second transbay crossing. she has a bs in environmental studies from uc santa barbara.

so welcome lizzie. welcome to the hearing chambers. thank you. we got time. do we can give her a half an hour for open mic? it's a short calendar. good afternoon, commissioners lizzie mao planning department staff, the project before you includes the installation of a new dish. wireless macro, wireless telecommunication services facility consisting of three new antennas screened within two radome covers that have a maximum height of 42in, and the ancillary equipment screened with an eight foot tall enclosure. the proposed wireless telecommuting facility will be located on the rooftop of the existing 26 story mixed use building at the northwest corner of otis and 12th street. the existing building contains 2200ft!s of retail space. 16,000ft!s of arts activities, and a theater for the city city ballet school and 416 dwelling units, and was completed in

2021. the proposed project would result in new shadow on the proposed 11th and natoma park, under the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department, increasing the shadow load by 0.003% above current levels, increasing the theoretically available annual sunlight. to 23.265. in order for the project to proceed, the commission, with the recommendation of the recreation and parks commission, must grant an adoption of shadow findings that the shadow on the proposed 11th and natoma park would not be significant or adverse to the use of the park. pursuant to the planning code section 295. additionally the commission must grant conditional use authorization for wireless telecommunication facility taller than 25ft above roof grade or height pursuant to planning code sections two, 10.2, and 303. the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the market and octavia area plan. downtown area plan, and the

objectives and policies of the general plan. the proposed facility will enhance the area's public safety infrastructure, but providing improved wireless telecommunication services to the surrounding neighborhood. at all times, as well as during natural disasters or other emergencies. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to the persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. staff recommends approval with conditions. and that concludes my presentation and i am available for questions . thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. no. okay um, with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again, you need to come forward seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners commissioner imperial. thank you

. um, i have a question to the staff. since the project sponsor is not here. um the planning staff. yeah yeah. and the project sponsor is here. he just doesn't have a presentation for you guys today. okay, maybe i'll ask the question to the sponsor. where is the project sponsor? okay, so my question to you is, uh, have you explored any parts of the building or on the rooftop aside from that, aside on top of that, i believe there is that, um, structure already on top. where are you going to put the antenna. have you explored in other parts of on that area as well, where it can be put otherwise? sure and i'm eric lance, uh, project sponsor representing, uh, dish wireless on this application. yes. um, that would have been a preferred option for, for a dish as well.

the building is unique. there's some publicly occupied areas on the roof. there's an atrium, there's a very large window washing equipment. there's a permanent crane on the roof. that's for window washing. the way the way the planning code is. and the reason why we're here is because we're exceeding this height limit in this commercial zone district by over 25ft. if we were to have facade mounted screen somewhere below that parapet, the exceptions and the code would have allowed this as like a building permit. um, so we did explore those, those options. it, it resulted in, um, us really having the only location would have been the upper rooftop. the upper rooftop . and on the other parts of it that will be because the size of this, my goal is to the reason why i take it off in the consent. because the future

impact it will have on the 11th and natoma park, it's actually it's going as is. it is going to have an impact on the children playground, which is around in the, i believe in the spring. um, and even though it's minimal, it's point zero 3, um, but this is going to be a future park in this area as well. and um, so i'm trying to see if there's a way to mitigate that impact, um, or to minimize the impact of shadow, perhaps on the other area of the rooftop as well. um, sure. for the original proposal that we did submit included a screening around the entire upper penthouse, which would have been an eight foot wall on the entire penthouse. and we've reduced that that screening to just encapsulating the equipment area, which is the or base station, the cabinets in the center of that rooftop, and then the antennas, there will be

just two radomes, as we call them, radome. they're the cylinders, circle cylinders. so the antennas would be within those radomes on on two sides of that upper rooftop. so going from an eight foot tall parapet extension, that would be i don't have the exact dimensions of it, but it was pretty large wall that would have screened everything, including all the existing equipment that's on the roof already. like there's satellite dishes and maybe some hvac equipment. um, we reduced that to the two radomes and then put the equipment right in the middle of the roof. so it's less visible. but also would project less of a shadow. yeah. um will that project a less shadow on the on the on the on the that one. the initial proposal. yeah. so the shadow study was run off the, the reduced design line. so that .00 3% is, is in addition to what the building is already going to cast on that. and that, um, that occurs as uh, late

afternoon in the winter after for £0.30 m. that's the kind of the peak time, um, that .003 would be that that time of the year. i'm wondering what the planning staff, um, you know, um , point of view in terms of the initial recommendation or initial, um, proposal that they, they did, um, on this. sure. lizzy mao planning staff. so, yeah. eric is correct. they initially proposed an eight foot tall enclosure surrounding the entire mechanical penthouse. um, their shadow consultant cast did conduct an analysis of that initial proposal, and so that would have cast 01% of shadow on the park. and so their reduced massing has actually significantly decreased the amount of shadow cast to, again, 0.003% of shadow. so we did request for them to reduce their

massing, and they did significantly reduce, um, the massing as much as they could based on the equipment that they're putting up there. okay. so and i was just going to add on to that, i think an important, um, factor here is this did go to the rec park commission. um, the shadow that's cast, um, is again after 430 in the winter. i think all of us who live here, practically speaking, know that there's not much sunshine. usually after 430 in the winter months. um, but the rec park commission had no concerns about the impact. they were almost a little perplexed why it was before them. um, and so i think based in their recommendation on the sort of de minimis amount of shadow and i think importantly, the time of day and the time of year that the shadow is cast. i think all of those things coupled with, i think the great work that staff did to work with the sponsor to reduce the shadow impact from the original proposal, sort of couple our recommendation for approval. um, i understand and, you know, i, i do not have issue with the wireless telecommunication system. my only goal is to minimize the future impact of this park. and

even though it's, you know, whether it's, you know, if it's if the initial proposal was just 0.001, then that would be i would prefer that than .003. i think you misunderstand. it was .01 versus .0003. so this is dramatically less than what the original was. yeah. thank you for that clarification. um, okay . um thank you. it looks like it has been explored. um, i just want to make that emphasis that this will be a future park and that, um, even though the winter, the winter area, the winter time, i mean, sunsets around 5 p.m, but it's still an important time, especially if this is going to be for children's playground. so so i know that they did the due diligence and i'm willing to go and approve this vice president more. i have only one additional

question. were other buildings, uh, explored to locate this particular equipment? hello, lizzy. mount planning staff? um, yes. all wireless telecommunications facility have an alternate sites location plan. so five other locations were analyzed and they either declined having the facility there or did not respond. and the real concern is, as we are trying to build out the hub which this building is a piece, uh, we will have to look perhaps more carefully at, uh, which buildings will be casting shadow on this type of a park? uh particularly as a public park, i assume it's under the jurisdiction of park and rec. uh uh, will require additional protection. so i think you raising the question here would just basically send a message back to staff and to planning that future buildings who will try to further reduce, uh,

sunlight on this park is going to be critical. so that was my comment. commissioner braun, i just want to say thank you to commissioner imperial for bringing this up. um and it's not often that we get a new public park in the city. and so, uh, wanting to protect and have a very careful oversight of any new shadows cast on this park. uh, i'm in full favor of that. uh, given that it's only a .00 3% increase in shadow load. uh, i am not particularly concerned. especially with the recommendation from the parks commission. so i moved to. approve second. there's nothing further commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to , um, adopt shadow findings and approve. with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, i

commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 placing us under your discretionary review calendar for item nine case number 2021 hyphen 009470 drp for the property at 4820 anza street, a discretionary review. hi. good afternoon, commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application number. 2021 0830.7438 to construct a two story vertical addition to a two story, single family home. uh, the existing

building is a category c uh, no historic resource. built in 1924. to date, the department has received two letters supporting and three letters opposing the project. the dr. requester, deborah hawley, on behalf of rita and eugene katz of 587 39th avenue, the residents of the adjacent house to the east is concerned that the project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to building scale at the rear and the front. uh topography and privacy and light and air impacts. their proposed alternatives are to eliminate the fourth story and to eliminate the rear roof deck. staff generally supports the project as it is code complying and meets the residential design guidelines as this is a key lot in relation to the houses that front 4930 ninth avenue staff design review initially

recommended the removal of the fourth floor to comply with the residential design guideline design. the height and depth of the building to be compatible with the existing building scale at the mid-block open space. the addition was ultimately revised to significantly reduce the massing at the rear by setting the third and fourth story back 16ft from the rear wall. the stair enclosure along the uh east wall was also shaped to reduce its massing. the roof deck was also reduced by several feet in the front. um and the fourth story addition aligns with the rear wall of the immediate neighbor to the west. because of the up sloping terrain, the addition is three stories above grade and therefore steps up with the topography. this is similar in height to the adjacent neighbor, dr. requesters three story building and i, uh, amend that in the report. it was described as a four story building. the dr. requesters building is a three story building to the east at 39th avenue, and several other buildings on 39th avenue

to the north. based on these factors, subsequent review deemed the size and location of the third and fourth story to be an appropriate design response and i would like to add for clarity that the review matrix that tracks our iterative, uh, recommendations and the project sponsors responses to those iterations was not modified to reflect the compliance that we ultimately got to. um, as, as, um, just to avoid some confusion, clerical error on my part. um additionally, do the high parapets on adjacent buildings. the third story addition at the street appears only half a story higher, and was found to be compatible with that existing, uh, scale prevailing scale of two story buildings along anza. there is a deck proposed over the existing one story portion of the building at the rear that deck extends to the shared property line with the dr. requester. the

height of the solid fire rated parapet for the deck, along with the unnecessary potential for conflicts from the deck to impose on privacy impacts, is exceptional. therefore, staff deems that is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance and recommends taking discretionary review to and approving with a rear deck setback five feet from property lines and removing the solid parapet wall above the roof level. thank you. thank you. that concludes staff presentation. we should hear from the dr. requester. you have five minutes. hi i'm rita katz, and this is my husband, eugene katz. we're first generation immigrants, and i've lived majority of my life in san francisco. i'm a lincoln graduate and a san francisco state graduate. i run a small business in san francisco for the past 15 years. we purchased our home in 2009 and spent five

years evenings and weekends rebuilding it. and we're proud parents of three babies who were also born in san francisco. good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to present here eugene katz. i'm a resident of san francisco for over 20 years. um why are we here today? um it's two points. one is we're speaking up for the neighborhood, and we're speaking up for the neighbors. we're speaking up for the multigenerational neighborhood and multicultural neighborhood. and, um, folks who can't speak up for themselves. we're here to protect the look and feel of the 100 year old neighborhood that we love. um we support and believe that mr. caputo and his family have the right to build their dream home. uh, we just ask that it is done with. with consideration to the neighborhoods and to the neighbors. and in that spirit, we have proposed a solution

where some of this were the same square footage is achieved by eliminating the fourth story in consideration with the neighborhood and the neighbors. it can be done. it can be accomplished. we did that with our 2700 square foot home that we took five years to remodel without impact to any of our neighbors, or the look and feel of the neighborhood. thank you. do we have the overhead? please. good afternoon. sorry can we go to the overhead? okay good afternoon, president dimond. vice president moran, commissioners. deborah holley, on behalf of the katz's, we agree with mr. winslow's recommendation that this project that you should take doctor, because this project presents exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. um where we differ is that we are requesting the one additional modification. remove the fourth floor. we understand that the need to

accommodate the project sponsors , aging families, um, however, they don't need to have a 4500 square foot uh, house house to be able to live together, as shown in on the slide. most of the single family homes in the neighborhood are quite modest in size, about about 1500ft!s, two stories like the project sponsors home. uh, the project would triple the size of the existing home. um, we while there are few, uh, four story buildings in the neighborhood, as shown in this slide, um, they they are multifamily units. they contain 2 to 18 units. but again , the scale is mostly two story, uh, homes. planning department staff got it right the first two

times they reviewed the design and told the project sponsors to remove the fourth floor from the project, quote, the fourth floor addition is out of scale with the context and would have substantial impacts to surrounding properties. design review recommends that the fourth floor be removed entirely, unquote. unfortunately, this direction was reversed after one meeting with senior staff, where it was decided they could keep. the fourth floor was what we were asking for is the fourth floor, which contains just an office and a bathroom be relocated to another location in the house. for example, the ground floor has an entertainment, uh, room behind the garage. they could move that off office to the entertainment room location, and they'd have privacy. um this seems like a reasonable

compromise to us. they could still have a 4000 square foot plus home larger than any other single family home in the area. um, the project sponsors have tried to justify adding the four stories, citing others in the neighborhood, including the building at 579 to 580 1/39 avenue show shown in the slide. however, this is a false comparison. first, this building is 24ft, nine nine inches high at the street height, with a partially below grade ground floor and 28.5ft on the other sides of the building. uh, this compares with 36ft for the proposed project, and it contains two dwelling units. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes.

good afternoon, commissioners. thank you very much for being here today. um, to short calendar and i appreciate your, uh, under standing of the importance of a project like this to a family like, um, um, mr. caputo and mr. grannis. um i'm going to go to the overhead, uh, to the computer. many things about the discretionary review process are changing. many of the, uh, criteria that we use to evaluate, um, what's appropriate development is changing, but the basic gist of the process isn't changing very much. hasn't changed very much at all. um, i remember my first matter like this before the planning

commission was more than 30 years ago, and president of the commission at the time, sidney yanofsky, said that this is not about we're no longer keeping up with the joneses. we're using this process to keep down the joneses and that that comment of president yanovsky's at the time has stuck with me. um, if we can go to the over overhead and you can see where the, uh, red x is, is, uh, that's the, um, dr. requester's home and the green, uh, zero zero is the project site. um when the project is finished, the dr. requester's home will still be, uh, five feet or more higher. higher at its highest point than on the project site will be at its highest point. um although they're asking for us to give up

an important design component of a code complying project, they're not giving us any reason why this is going to benefit any of the surrounding properties. as a result. um, i think that that's what, uh, president yanofsky was driving at 30 years ago, that is, if we're going to take doctor in code complying projects, we should be looking at what the actual impacts of that are, are and whether the code was conceived correctly to allow that type of development. um, as you can see, looking up this block, there are many of the houses are of similar mass and height, uh, to where the red x is. and as i said, the project , when completed, will be, um, below that the height of that property. i'll go to the next slide. i go to the next slide.

um, you can see, uh, you have this material in front of you. this these are the alterations that have been made to the project. reductions that have been made in size and scale, uh, since we've been working with design review. i want to thank the case planner for her diligence in getting the best project possible. designed here that will meet the needs of the family. um we have entirely removed the addition at that rear portion of the of the lot where you see the red hatching. um, we agree with, um, mr. utter, um, with those. excuse me for a second. we agree with mr. winslow's, uh, a conclusion about the deck. that setting back that deck at the rear property line. uh, the side property line with the dr. requester, um, and the other

39th avenue, uh, lots is appropriate. it will make it this a better project for everyone concerned. we'll avoid any, um, interruption in privacy that might develop if we were right up to the property line. so we're going to set that back five feet. uh whether or not this board, uh, this commission decides to take dr. and require it, um, this is a rendering of what we're proposing. it's very typical of the kind of thing we're seeing now in the richmond district that this meets the needs of this family. and i would encourage you to support code compliant projects like this. um, uh, lewis caputo has been in this house for more than 30 years, and he wishes to stay in this house, and he wishes for his family to be with in this hs he ages. i think that there's nothing better that we can do with older homes than to allow

them to be adapted for aging in place. thank you very much. okay members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. uh, you'll each have two minutes. once again, you need to come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. come on up, sir. you can start. you may, um. with all due respect to jeremy, paul and the owners of the property, this project is all about land use, gluttony and playing the zoning code to the maximum extent possible. this project should be rejected out of hand. i've done a public records request. the commission asked this project be scaled back in december 2021. three months later, the proponents

came back and said no, a position they maintain today. the scale back being the one floor eliminated totally. this block a brief walk down the block, are all single family homes counting the garage. two stories. if you live next door, commissioners to this proposed project, how would you feel? this project is totally out of scope. the proponents know it. the project is out of scope to the current housing in the neighborhood, particularly on the block between 39th and 40th avenue, where my wife and i raised two children and have lived the past 40 years. this project should be sent back. to the people who want to move forward with it, and it should be redone in total. thank you.

good afternoon commissioners. my name is terrence allen and i am not going to speak about the project. i'm going to speak about the people who are proposing doing the project. i am the most recent past president of the castro merchants. i led the castro merchants through through the pandemic and in the castro is a large nightclub, the cafe and the cafe is managed by the gentleman who is bringing this project forward to you. it is very important to the community that we recognize the quality of people that are inhabiting the businesses that we have in our neighborhoods, and take that quality of person and bring them

to their homes and extend to them the courtesy that they have extended to the neighborhoods throughout the time that they have been managing their businesses. when we started a program that was called the safety program, louis opened up the nightclub and said, bring people in and teach us how to be safe. he was one of the few five nightclubs that said, bring people in and teach us how to be safe. why was that so important? because we were in a bit of a turmoil at that point, and he allowed us to do that. that's the kind of gentleman that is there. that's the kind of neighbor that we want that i would think that the neighbors surrounding him would want him, would want him and his family and would applaud his bringing his extended family into the neighborhood. that's what i think we have to take into consideration, since we already

have a code compliant project in front of you. remember, it's the people that live there at the end of the day that matter. thank you. hello, i'm here to read this letter from their next door neighbor in support of the project. dear honorable members of the discretionary review committee, my name is og. sonny and i reside at 4826 anza street. i am the next door neighbor to louis caputo and jeffrey grannis. in our homes. physically touch. i'm writing to express my support for louis and jeffrey's home remodel. 4820 anza street, 2021 hyphen 009470 drp. they have been open and forthright with me about their project. since our homes have a physical connection, and i think this remodel will be a great addition to the neighborhood. thanks. okay, last call for

public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. we can go to rebuttals. do your request. do you have a two minute rebuttal? i have the overhead. please. okay. first i just wanted to show the 39th avenue. as you can see, it's sloped just to see those buildings around the corner from another perspective. second, um, i wanted to finish my presentation. um the existing sunlight to the cats backyard and rear windows would be blocked by the project. the neighbors requested a shadow study from the project sponsor, but received no response.

however, given that the proposed vertical and horizontal extension on that you can see in red, there is adjacent to the south west of the cats home. it's reasonable to expect that such light and shadow impacts would result from the project. um, again, the planning department had it right when they asked the project sponsors to entirely remove the fourth floor from the plans. this would still provide them with a large home. um, but also making sure that the impacts on the neighbors are reduced and the prevailing neighborhood massing is reduced. and, um, is respected. i'm sorry. and maintain and, um, do you want to and i know the neighbors are welcoming, uh, past history. they've had a good relationship. uh, eugene and rita want them to

have, uh, be able to live with their parents. yeah, i'm happy to add to that. um family is extremely important to us. as. as my wife mentioned, we're first generation immigrants, and it is about family values. it is about the neighborhood. it is about ensuring that our neighbors have the best quality of life that they possibly can. the only ask is that it's done within the boundaries of the neighborhood and within the risk detectable way, way of doing it. um thank you. thank you. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. thank you. jonas. jeremy paul, for louis caputo and jeffrey grannis. um going to the overhead, the, uh, letter that you that was read into the

record was from the resident of this home here for the for the doctor requester is the yellow speaking to the microphone, please. sorry is the yellow structure that you can see from the at the rear. um, the catches um, are currently have renters living there. they left out um, i guess during covid um and i appreciate that. um, as a renter myself in san francisco, it's important to have good rental property. um, but i want to point out that the amount of, of shadowing that this structure to the west is going to have on a, a structure that is largely, um, to the north, um, is not

significant enough to merit altering this project. i think that the, uh, planning staff has gotten it right. i think that modifying this rear deck to assure privacy is the right way to go. the modifications that have been made from the very beginning have been appropriate, and have rendered this to be a better project overall. and i would encourage you not to take dr. and to encourage, um, this project sponsor to move forward with this application. thank you . okay. commissioners with that this matter is now before you. so i want to thank all of the people who showed up to testify. um, and thank both the project sponsor and the doctor requester for the time spent, um, looking at this project, finding ways to try to accommodate the requests that are being made and time spent with staff. um, i believe

staff has it right. and i will be supporting, uh, staff s recommendation that we take doctor with the conditions listed by mister winslow. mr. koppell. so, commissioner koppell so moved second. vice president moore. uh, i'd like to just put to the record and just perhaps encouraging, uh, staff architect, uh, winslow to ask for slightly more explanatory drawings from the applicant. the drawings are basically door scheduled, etc. the drawings themselves are extremely difficult to read, and the one thing in the critical situation like that, what is missing here is indeed a 3d image of how this puzzle fits together, and i'm finding it increasingly, uh, more difficult to look at the hours and have the objective type of information that i

believe everybody needs to do. i am quite versed in reading drawings, but the set of drawings is insufficient for me to really properly understand what's needed. uh and again, we have submittal guidelines. the three d part is that clearly indicated in there. and i would encourage us, generically speaking, that we pay more attention to that. you took it apart in terms of mentioning the elevation differences between the siting of the different buildings. that helped, however, to comprehend, fully understand that in literally 360 degree radius is much, much more difficult. uh i like to express my concerns about the size of the building, and while this building does not fall in into a height, into a square, footage restricted district, it is a family district. it allows large, uh, larger units. we are encouraged to and i think as

we're moving forward with densification, in which everybody is quite concerned about it, uh, this would be a candidate where i would like to see two units, even if it's occupied by one family. i'm looking in into the future where we need to bring more units to the market and even half of 4500ft!s is still would result n two very positive, uh, family units. uh, did you have the discussion with the applicant as to whether or not there is an ability to, uh, when does this building was two units? even if it's occupied by one by one group? uh, no, i didn't actually , um, it's a typical planning department policy. we always try to encourage as many units as possible, but we also are obligated to react to projects as they come in. and forcing

their hands to do something that they weren't initially requesting is kind of a little bit of a tight wire act. yeah um . speaking about impact of a building that is enlarging in an urban context, it's a difficult discussion. we have it all around us. we all live in apartment buildings of varying kinds, where all of a sudden, across the street or diagonal alley, somewhere on the block, somebody is adding an addition and something will happen. it will either happen to your front door or to your living room facing the street, or it will happen in the back. uh, i believe that the move of adding a further reduction to the rear deck is beneficial to separate out the outdoor activities and the deck with each other. um and, uh, i believe that the modifications that have been done based on reviewing the different incremental steps that that project has gone through is for my, um, perspective, enough.

i personally do not like the building. i regret that we are not adding a little bit more design to residential buildings, but that we are making them more and more look alike. but that is my own personal opinion, which i am just expressing here, together with asking the department to spend more thoughtful time of how we move into really densifying the city when it comes to homes like this, we've got to think about the city differently. otherwise we're all losing it together. thank you, commissioner imperial . um, i'd like to thank the staff in terms of, you know, trying to modify modifying the project to reduce the massing and trying to reduce the impact of it. also to the neighbor. um, just like, um, vice president moore has mentioned, um, in terms of rating, because what i have is the original, you know, the original package. and, um, i do find the fourth floor, um,

the story, the fourth floor story to be, um, um, i think the, the office, because when you look into the third floor, it's pretty pretty much a living room and the kitchen and dining, which i think is very huge that i feel like perhaps the other parts on the fourth floor can be , um, again. be put down in the, in the third floor area. um, so i understand, i guess this is my question to you, mr. winslow. is there a way that and i know you have already reduced the, the roof deck area, um, on this, um, but is there a way where other um, and can you explain in terms of the, the rear, um, area on the fourth floor, how is that being reduced as well, or is there going to be any reduction to it? um. thank you. so um, i

think when the original plans came in, the, uh, the third and fourth floor extended 16ft and some few inches from there back to the rear. um and we, we and i and i also believe, don't have my record here. unfortunately i also believe it was the fourth story was extending further towards the street. but basically we're most most concerned with the amount of massing at the rear, four full stories. and so we recommended reducing it 16ft. and that's where it's landing today, such that the third and fourth story additions, rear wall are lining up basically with the rear wall of the adjacent building to the west on anza. um, and that in combination with the generous front setback of the upper floor of the fourth story, which renders it virtually, um, not visible from the street, um,

allows us to say this in another relation to the topography allowed us to find that that, um, revision to the drawings complied with the guidelines. so, um, yeah, i think you answered questions. i'm sorry if i might have. no, i think you answered my question. i think what i'm trying to get into is the fourth floor area where is there really a possibility for the necessity of it? i guess that's my, my, but but i think from what you have described in terms of the reduction from the, the rear yard, um, you know what i'm trying to get here is where the, the reduction on the fourth floor, i think that's where. and it seems like that has been, what, one more thing to add that was reduced and i neglected it both in my report. i think project sponsor indicated graphically but didn't state it the height of the fourth story was reduced slightly, so now i believe it's ceiling height, as in these plans is that the, uh, head height minimum seven foot six, which isn't very tall.

yeah. so it was in an effort to really scale this thing back in deference to some of those issues. thank you. those are my questions. i have another question. yes vice president, vice president moore, i understand that a motion has been made. i want to make sure that we are taking the are in order to formalize the request of the five foot setback for the for the second floor deck from the east. yes. that's included in the modification commission. commissioner brown also, i take it that the motion incorporates staff recommendation about the parapet as well. is that right? okay. thank you. if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr. and approve

with staff modifications on that motion. commissioner brown i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and concludes your hearing today .

[music] san francisco developing programs specific low to increase the amount of affordable housing throughout the city. >> the affordable housing bonus program provides developers to include more housing for i have low, low, moderate and middle income households. this program does not rely on public subsidies but private

developers who include it part of their project. under california density bonus law. housing prejudices that include affordable on site may be request a density bonus. it is an increase in the number of housing units allowed under zoning laws and based on affordable units being provided. >> however, the state law does not address all of san francisco needs does not incentivize middle income housing. associating the city is proposing an affordable housing bonus program for higher levels of development including middle income u firsts providing a stream lined application review and approval process. >> how does the program work in it applies to mixed use corridors in san francisco. and offers incentives to developers who provide 30% of

affordable in projects. to reach 30%, 12% of the units must be affordable to low income household and 18% per minute nap to middle income households. >> in exchange developers will will build more and up to additional 2 stories beyond current zoning regulations. >> 1 huh human % affordable will be offered up to 3 additional stories beyond current regulations. each building will be required conform to guidelines ensuring meets with the character of the area and commercial corridors. this program is an opportunity to double the amount of affordable housing and directly address the goals established by twenty 14 hosing element and prospect k paddled by voters last year. pacificly, prop circumstance established a goal that 33% of

all new housing permanent to low and moderate incomes this program will be the first to prosecute void permanent affordable projects that include middle income households. to learn more about the program visit [music] >> san francisco is known as yerba buena, good herb after a mint that used to grow here. at this time there were 3

settlements one was mission delores. one the presidio and one was yerba buena which was urban center. there were 800 people in 1848 it was small. a lot of historic buildings were here including pony express headquarters. wells fargo. hudson bay trading company and famous early settlers one of whom william leaderdorph who lived blocks from here a successful business person. african-american decent and the first million airin california. >> wilwoman was the founders of san francisco. here during the gold rush came in the early 1840s. he spent time stake himself as a merchant seaman and a business person. his father and brother in new

orleans. we know him for san francisco's history. establishing himself here arnold 18 twoochl he did one of many things the first to do in yerba buena. was not california yet and was not fully san francisco yet. >> because he was an american citizen but spoke spanish he was able to during the time when america was taking over california from mexico, there was annexations that happened and conflict emerging and war, of course. he was part of the peek deliberations and am bas doorship to create the state of california a vice council to mexico. mexico granted him citizenship. he loaned the government of san francisco money. to funds some of the war efforts to establish the city itself and the state, of course.

he established the first hotel here the person people turned to often to receive dignitaries or hold large gatherings established the first public school here and helped start the public school system. he piloted the first steam ship on the bay. a big event for san francisco and depict instead state seal the ship was the sitk a. there is a small 4 block long length of street, owned much of that runs essentially where the transamerica building is to it ends at california. i walk today before am a cute side street. at this point t is the center what was all his property. he was the person entrusted to be the city's first treasurer. that is i big deal of itself to have that legacy part of an

african-american the city's first banker. he was not only a forefather of the establishment of san francisco and california as a state but a leader in industry. he had a direct hahn in so many things that we look at in san francisco. part of our dna. you know you don't hear his anymore in the context of those. representation matters. you need to uplift this so people know him but people like him like me. like you. like anyone who looks like him to be, i can do this, too. to have the city's first banker and a street in the middle of financial district. that alone is powerful. [music]franciscans.

>> (bell tolling). >> wow. >> (clapping) welcome, everyone. here we are high on a hill. little morning fog, no rain are we lurking or not we're san franciscans. we're here to celebrate a beautiful man in our beautiful cable car cars what better day to do it in valentine's day can you bring our hearts