as for continuance. item one, case number 2021 hyphen 012028 inv for the stonestown development project, final environmental impact report is proposed for continuance to may 9th, 2020. for items two a through g for case numbers 2021 hyphen 012028e and v gpa, pc. a map. sachdeva and wp hyphen zero two for the stonestown development project. consideration of adoption of findings. general plan amendment planning code text and map

amendments. shadow findings. development agreement guidelines document are proposed to be continued to may 9th, 2020. for item three, case number 2023. hyphen 009969 see you at 249 texas street. conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance item for case number 2024. hyphen 001501 pca for the state mandated accessory dwelling unit controls planning code amendments has been withdrawn, as has item five for case number 2020. hyphen 0078068 1314 paige street. conditional use authorization has also been withdrawn. further commissioners. under your regular calendar, we've received a request from the supervisor's office for item 18, case number 2023, hyphen 007010c8 1310 junipero serra boulevard. conditional use authorization. the request is for one month,

putting us at about may 23rd. so that is the proposed continuance date, may 23rd, that concludes all items proposed to be continued. so we should take public comment only on the matter of continuance. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the items proposed to be continued. jonas did you list noriega as well on the continuance? yeah. oh i did not. no, no. noriega is being continued. okay. do we have a date? let me just quickly scan real quick here .

well, why don't we do this? commissioners? items 11 a and b for case number 2023, hyphen 003652 coa and vr for the property at 3901 noriega street. conditional use authorization and variance, is proposed for continuance. and why don't we place it on, may 9th? and if we need to, we'll continue it out further. at that time, that now concludes all items proposed to be continued. and so, again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of the items proposed for continuance. if you please come forward. seeing none public comment on the continuance calendar is closed and it is now before you. commissioners. commissioner braun, move to continue all

items as proposed. second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner williams, i commissioner braun i commissioner. imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore, i and commissioner. president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. i'll also continue item 11 b for the variance of noriega to may 9th. concurrent with the conditional use authorization as well. thank you. mr. zoning administrator. commissioners, i will place this on your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar 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. item six case

number 2023 hyphen 0112518 2650 ocean avenue. conditional use authorization item seven case number 2023 hyphen 008256 at 261 broad street. conditional use authorization item eight, case number 2024 hyphen 000596 coa 2999 california street. unit number 202 conditional use authorization item nine. case number 2023 hyphen 010539. see you at 530 howard street and item ten, case number 2024 hyphen 002074 pca for the parcel delivery service planning code amendments item items 11 a and b have been continued to may 9th. commissioners. we have already received a request for item seven to be pulled off of consent, so that will be considered at the beginning or the end of the agenda, why before gr but before doctor. so at the end of the regular calendar. so commissioners that leaves items six, eight, nine and ten members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items be pulled off of consent. to be

heard later today. yep. okay. i mean, if you want it heard and you want to speak to it, you need to request that it be pulled off of consent. okay. last call for the consent calendar. request to remove any items. broad street has already been pulled off. final last call. okay. with that, it is closed and public comment is closed. and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners vice president, move to approve. as noted with noriega continued and broad street to be heard later today. second, thank you, commissioners. on that motion, commissioner williams i commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under commission

matters. item 12 the land acknowledgment. okay i'll read the acknowledgment today, the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, 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 peoples 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 13 consideration of adoption draft minutes for march 14th, april 4th and april 11th. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the

commission on their minutes. again, you need to come forward. seeing none, public comment on the minutes is closed and just for clarification, there was a slight amendment per commissioner. i mean per commissioner per miss schultz's request. that was made, that included her comments that were omitted. with that, commissioners, the minutes are before you. commissioner imperial moved to adopt the minutes. second. thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner williams, i commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i commission. president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. item 14 commission comments and questions. if there are no comments and questions for the from the commissioners, we can

move on to department matters. item 15 directors announcements. i'm not sure if we mentioned this in the past, but, lydia show has been nominated to sit on the planning commission by the mayor to replace commissioner tanner. i i, i believe she's scheduled for roles next week, or that's what's anticipated. so she's likely to join us sometime in may. she was on the historic preservation commission, currently on the mta commission. so we look forward to seeing her here. okay. if there's nothing further, we can move on to item 16, review of past events of the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commission yesterday, good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. this week, the land use committee considered the landmark designation for the san francisco fire station number 44, located at 1298 gerrard street in visitacion valley. the designation was initiated by the board in september of last year and sponsored by supervisor walton. the hbcu unanimously

recommended approval of the designation in december 20th of last year. designed by city architect john reed jr, fire station 44 was constructed in 1913 and one of the oldest active fire stations in san francisco. fire station 44 is significant for association with the expansion of fire department. the fire department in 1910 is an excellent example of the classical revival style, is a brick fire station, and is representative of the work of an architect of merit at the hearing this week, president peskin joined his co-sponsor. there was no public comment, and the land use committee forwarded the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. next, the committee took up the duplicated file of supervisor peskin's density controls in three historic districts. ordinance. you may recall the original ordinance was vetoed by the mayor, and that veto was overridden by the board of supervisors with supervisor stephanie providing one of the deciding votes. the duplicated file was also created by supervisor stephanie. the original ordinance reverted the

jackson square historic district , its extension, and the northeast waterfront historic district to numeric density controls. it also created an exception to allow form based density controls in these districts. if the project was utilizing the commercial to residential adaptive reuse program at the land use committee this week, supervisor stephanie joined the committee to introduce her proposed amendments to the duplicated ordinance. these amendments would allow for form based density in the subject historic districts, but would limit the use of the state density bonus to more than 50% of the base density. because these amendments are substantive, this duplicated file, will have to come back to this planning commission at the full board this week, the treasure island yerba buena island planning code and zoning map amendments passed their first read. and lastly, the board considered the ceqa appeal for 72 harper street. this project would construct a three story rear addition to an existing single family dwelling and elevate portions of the existing roof to add a bedroom

and bathroom on the third floor. the proposal would also add an adu to the ground floor. commissioners, you heard this project on february eighth of this year and declined to take discretionary review as the project met the residential design guidelines. it's also reasonably sized addition and creates more housing. the ceqa determination was appealed by several adjacent neighbors. the appellants contend that the department did not properly evaluate the project, and that this that the subject property is a historic resource. as a result, the appellants claim that the project should not be eligible for categorical exemption. however as the department explained, the project would not affect potential character defining features on the subject building that could lead to its designation as a historic resource. as a result, a historic resource evaluation was not required and that the project was eligible for categorical exemption. during the hearing, supervisor mandelman asked questions about our current notification requirements given the passage of the constraints reduction ordinance. he also asked the department to clarify the project in relation to the potential character defining

features. there was no public comment made during the board hearing either for or against the appeal. at the conclusion of the hearing, supervisor mandelman stated that he sensed the appellant was simply appealing a doctor action to the board, and that the issue was the issues were not ceqa related. as such, he made a motion to reject the appeal and uphold the department's decision to prepare a category exemption for the project. the board of supervisors voted unanimously to approve that motion, and that's all i have for you today. thank you. if there are no questions, vice president moore, mr. starr, would you mind explaining briefly to what extent the board of supervisors discussed treasure island? i mean, we deliberated very intensely on it, and discussed the i'm sorry, the treasure island, they usually don't discuss that things very much, at the full board on first read. but i can

review the, the land use committee chair and see if they had more comment. would be interesting because we really wanted to learn for the cop something which we at least. speaking for myself, are completely unfamiliar with and wondering if they had any discussion about that. i would personally be interested to learn if there were discussions about that. like i said, most discussions tend to happen at the land use committee, but i can check back with the planner to see what happened with that. and i think this even went to budget and finance committee as well as land use. so there were two hearings that the board had, and i know it was discussed extensively, extensively at both. if you wouldn't mind giving us next time, whenever it's appropriate, a brief summary of where that's going. i'm gone for a month, so you'll have to. but i'll find someone else. thanks good afternoon, president diamond commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator. the board of appeals met, last week but did not take up any items of

interest to the planning commission. then they did not meet last night, and they'll meet again on may 8th. thank you . okay, commissioners, that will place us under 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. accept agenda items with respect to agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. great. three minutes. thank you. good afternoon, georgia. the two projects in the email with the pdfs and on tuesday were originally on the market. in 2014. they're examples of speculative development that use the loophole of the demo calc's never being adjusted in order to be approved as alterations and not demolitions. please remember that in 2014, section 317 had

been in effect since 2008, and that the commission was informed by staff during the hearing to approve the code implementation document in 2009 that the calc's would likely need adjustment, and five years later, in 2014, that had not happened. please remember the policies of the 2014 housing element were to preserve and protect existing housing, like the two examples in the email. not to de facto demolish them. the policies of the housing element and the planning code were circumvented and violated in this context. please think about the future of existing housing in the pegs which was created to protect and preserve existing housing while in the neighborhoods outside of the pegs increased density and up zoning will be concentrated per the constraints reduction ordinance and the 2022 housing element. how can existing housing in the pegs be protected and preserved? so there won't be projects like the two 2014

examples? one way is to codify the residential flat policy and preserve flats in their original location within a structure, and in their original configuration. this is action 8.8.3.2, identified with the short timeline in the housing element. another way is to adjust the calc's. the constraints reduction ordinance specifically talks about planning processes, speculative development using the current values of section 317. democrats in the pegs is using a planning processes that do not, quote, prevent the potential displacement and adverse racial and social equity impacts. close quote. please look at the sales history of the examples in the email. these price increases mirror increased housing costs of the past decade per the constraints reduction findings. beyond adjusting the calc's to make them more stringent, it is necessary to have consistent and accurate

review of the demographics by staff and the commission. neither 2014 project had calc's on the plans in front of the commission. at the hearings with extreme alterations, the demo calc's should be closely reviewed and thoroughly scrutinized by staff and the commission for all projects, particularly in the pegs, to avoid a replay of 2014 mistakes in 2024. thank you very much. and here's my 150 words for the minutes. thanks, miss. was either last week or the week before we had a lengthy discussion amongst the commissioners as to the timing on the residential flat policy and i indicated that we would take that discussion up at the next officers meeting. we did that vice president moore and i, in discussion with staff and miss, what do you want to give a summary of where we landed on sort of how that how you anticipate that rolling out and

when there will be discussion on that? sure. i think effectively what we said is that we're going to it's one of our action items in the housing element. we do have it. there's a timeline i'm forgetting off the top of my head what the timeline is, but there's an identified timeline for performance for us to address that in the housing element, and when we come before you at our next hearing where we talk about some of our housing element implementation strategy will inform you, then of what sort of our game plan is. but at this moment, we haven't figured out a staffing solution for it, but we will for sure be in compliance with the timelines that we've identified in the housing element. and my understanding is that at least at the moment, june 6th is the date that you are coming back to discuss sort of the rollout and housing expansion, opportunities. correct yes, yes. although i think that discussion , you know, we're going to focus on some of the specific topics we had highlighted in the memo. i think preservation may be an issue. we talk about an objective design standards not finalized yet, but we want to

kind of tailor those discussions. but happy to talk. no, i knew we weren't talking about the details of the residential flat policy, but my understanding was that june sixth, you might have a better sense of the timeline for when these subjects would be rolled out. so we could answer, miss schwartz, you know, question. and the commissioners had the same question around, what do you see as the, you know, how are you allocating staff so that we understand when this question is going to be addressed? understanding we do have staffing constraints. thank you. great last call for general public comment. yeah. good afternoon. commissioners, tom ray, yeah. i just wanted to request again, just, i understand that the issue of the, rezoning of the proposed, large project on, near geary and

masonic is, is, you know, continued a little ways down the line, but, i'm kind of like my i , i, i keep my, my neighbors informed as much as i can old timers. and i understand that it's more expedient to just email for contacts and stuff, though. but, if an effort may just have requested, again, if an effort can be made to, you know, contact through mail and everything, i'd appreciate it. my neighbors are up there in age pretty well. my next door neighbor just passed and everything. he's like, he was just short of 100 and everything. but anyways, they all they all try to stay involved. and anyways, i appreciate the effort. if you guys can. thank you. so that is the third time you've been in front of us to request this. and we appreciate how much time it takes to show up here and make that request as indicated. the issue of mailed notice is one that we did have a planning

commission discussion about, and we have been in conversation with director hillis about it. i think there is an effort underway. to respond to that request of doing mailed notice. it's in a, you know, a cost to the city that isn't legally required. we understand why you want it. and i think at the moment the department is deliberating on what's the right time to do the mailed notice because of the cost. i don't know that we yet have an answer on it, but i do know that it is very much, you know, on the agenda. there is a desire to do it. but the question is, what's the appropriate timing given the lack of requirement and the additional cost that that are behind that? i don't know, director hillis, if there's anything you want to add to that , let's talk about that, too. commissioner williams. yeah, to ray is this is this one specific project? are you talking about the whole rezoning in that area as the rezoning? you need to.

i'm sorry. sorry about that. yeah, i'm generally the whole project because i'll. i'll probably do a pretty hashed up job of, of explaining it to, to my neighbors and everything. so like, if the, the overall high points could be, you know, would you guys discuss here or, you know, what's if it could be, you know, sent out to the affected, sounds like the sooner the better, the sooner the better. is that. yeah. kind of. what? what i'm hearing. we'd appreciate it. all right. appreciate you. thank you, thank you. okay. final last call for general public comment. seeing none. general public comment is closed. we can move on to your regular calendar. commissioners for item 17, case number 2023, hyphen 002450 cw p for the area plan implementation update and inter department plan implementation committee report

informational presentation, good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners, i'm matt snyder of department staff. i'm joined by my colleague lily langlois. we're both on the implementation team of the citywide division. and we are here to provide you with our annual report on our work with the inter agency plan implementation committee, or ipic, like we do every year, we're going to provide you a quick reminder of what ipic is and talk about the overall trends of impact fee, revenue and expenditure and then provide you some highlights with each of the seven plan areas we are charged with overseeing. okay. good. all right. just a quick reminder, ipic was created about 15 years ago to create a multi departmental body to help plan and carry out the implementation of recently approved area plans. since the mid 2000, the creation of these area plans had included establishing of implementation documents or community benefits plans with area based impact fees to help fund those. those

plans, okay, good, on the on the other side, we have, three or we've had three community advisory committees for the eastern neighborhoods, for market octavia, and for south of market. they have acted as sounding boards, sort of a counter to ipic in helping us provide advice on on the implementation of the area plans. and again, specifically around infrastructure projects. areas of spending, have been determined through respective planning processes for the area plans and each area plan kind of has its own history, its own context for the reason why it was we kind of set forth in creating them, and but we've consolidated the areas for which we have funding for each of those of the plan areas, and they include transit, complete streets, recreation and open space, what did i say? complete

sorry, i missed a slide, recreation and open space, child care. we recently added community facilities and then also a set aside for administration. now, let's kind of talk through some of the key issues and considerations, some of the some of these include the continued slowing of revenue relative to what we had expected in the previous cycle. this is a resulted in being behind being able to fund some of our previous commitments. and because of this, we decided early in our projection cycle that we would be even more conservative in projecting when to expect revenue projections for pipeline projects. for an example, what we had called some of the key projects in the central soma, which include a lot of, high density office projects because they're still technically in the, in the, in the application pipeline, but because they have not moved forward because of the nature of those projects, we assume that revenue or those projects aren't going to start until the end of

the five year cycle, but a bigger picture for us this year has been the passage of the fee reduction and deferral legislation, which which, as you will see, kind of changed our projections of what we'll be able to fund, having said that, our implementation team did look at our past successes and consolidated our record of everything that we had ever funded, and did find that the ipic program in general has been quite successful in carrying forward projects that were envisioned as a part of the original implementation programs . so as i kind of mentioned the big story this past year is the passage of that fee reduction and deferral legislation. understandably, the mayor and the board of supervisors and you commissioners had been looking in many ways to spur development that had largely been stalled over the last five years. and one of the ways was to reduce costs to developers here through the reduction of impact fees. and again, just a quick reminder that that the fee deferral program or the and reduction program had three kind of components. it reinforces dated a fee deferral, which enables

developers to pay their fees at the end of construction instead of at the beginning of construction. they would still be paying a little bit at the beginning of construction, but that would mean we're not going to see that fee for another at least three years from what we've previously had thought, the legislation revised fee indexing, we had usually assumed that we could increase fees roughly by the by the rate of inflation for construction that was capped at 2. to make it more predictable for developers are also able to key in those rates at the time of entitlement. and then there was a temporary rate fee rate reduction of about 33% across the board. so to give you a sense of how that affected our projections, this this table shows the change in amount we had expected over the next five years. that is fy 25 through 29, based on what we had previously projected in the revised amounts, we are now projecting. of the four area plans shown in the table, we now anticipate raising a little over a third of what we had previously expected,

most of again, most of this again is due because those payments are coming in later beyond the five year cycle. again, falling outside of that, that five year cycle. okay to go on to some previous trends, this table shows the amount we had raised by category and area plan . and then that area represented in the bar chart. as you can see by these amounts vary significantly from balboa to visit valley, which we'd never expected to raise a whole lot of money, of around $2 million that they that they've been able to raise so far to transit center with us, which has a small number of very large projects paying very large fees, which we've raised about 82 million. that's inclusive of in kinds. am i on the right? okay. in the next slide, this this bar, let me go on to the next bar chart. this bar chart shows the trend provides a steady rise in revenue between phi and phi 11

and fy 18, and then a reduction after fy 18 as we moved into the covid period. you can also that revenue was beginning to rise again in fy 23, where we had a significant gain in revenue again to due to some of the most previously passed area plans in the hub and in central soma, where, where projects were looking to pay large fees. and this and this bump actually came in from just a couple of projects. and then we see that our revenue for the current fiscal year that we're in, you know, we're anticipating very little that will show in the next, next table. so this this one shows what we're what we're projecting in the next two years, which as you can see is extremely modest, with no anticipated fee revenue in three of the plan areas. again, this is largely due to those development projects now being able to pay their fees, after construction and rather than at the beginning that picture gets a little bit better. oops. i'm one off. okay. i'm sorry that

picture gets a little bit better in the in the following three years to fy 27 to 29, which we look to raise about $113 million. okay. and we'll give you now some highlights into the seven plan areas. we'll start with balboa park, okay. this is, balboa park was, we never anticipated a whole lot of revenue coming from balboa park. there's a relatively, relatively few operating entity sites outside of the balboa reservoir development agreements, which are not paying into the impact fees. having said that, we do it does look to keep track of other non fee activities in the plan area. and this year we saw the completion of the upper yards affordable housing project, which was a major project and then not shown on this slide, approval of the first phase of what i just mentioned, the balboa reservoir project that included about 628 units and its first open space. this graphic shows the layout of ocean avenue improvement plan, which was the

basis for several transportation related improvements in balboa. okay, so next up is eastern neighborhoods. we have funded about 30 projects in a wide variety of scales, from small community projects to major streets and park projects, and in this table, in this next table. okay, just a general note about the tables that i'm going to show you for the rest of the area plans, you will see in the upcoming some you'll see a lot of negative numbers in when i was giving you these presentations in the previous years through fy 24, we were often showing negative numbers is what these mean is the revenue is what we actually got. spending plan for the fy through fy 24 is what we had anticipated to be able to spend up to that, to that time period. but because our projections were off, you

know, we have what i call an appropriations deficit here. the $9.9 million, what that what that means in reality is that we have that difference is our commitments that we've made these agencies through the budget process are authorized to, to move forward on those projects. but because of the fee, revenue hasn't come in. we have not been able to move forward on them or provide them with those funds. and the next two columns in previous cycles, when i've talked to you, we've always looked to make those balanced and or positive numbers. you'll see. we'll sometimes see negative numbers. and the reason why that is, is because ipic, the agencies that we work with, wanted to keep kind of on the books or in as, as a part of this report, some of the projects that we had hoped to be able to fund, they want to be able to kind of just memorialize it in case development does show an uptick, as we're hoping through the fee deferral program and other means to kind of spur development. and then just also to show kind of what the difference has been as to what we had previously expected and what we're now

planning for, so just some of the, some of the milestones and as i indicated, even though we're, we're not looking to move forward on a lot of new projects in the next five years, we have hit a lot of milestones that were important to the to the area plans. one of the things for eastern neighborhoods was the creation and the rehabilitation of a park in each of the neighborhoods, and this year, rec and park completed, the rehabilitation of drury commons, which is a small park in the mission jackson playground. got approval for conceptual designs at the rec and park commission. this is one of the projects for rec and park and the eastern neighborhoods. the cac was a high priority for them. i think it's probably the next thing we're kind of aiming to get moving again. and then san bruno improvements, also referred to as potrero gateway and previous to that is the loop was a small set of community, they, they asked us to do to, to commit to this project. it's a small scale streetscape projects in open spaces around 17th

street and i i-80 or one, i should say. okay. so next up is south of market, as you know, central market was adopted in 2018, it anticipated a significant, significant amount of development with large portions of office development. and then we had structured the fees so that they'd be paying, a large amount of fees that could that could fund significant infrastructure for that, for that area. and here we do see some pretty dramatic negative numbers. we have about $31 million that we had hoped to fund at this point, from projections that we'd thought we would be getting at this point. and because we pushed in our projections all the office projects to the latter part of this cycle, so we wouldn't be anticipating that revenue in the next two years, and they're going to be paying outside of that cycle. we see a fairly significant difference in what we had hoped to have seen and what we're now expecting, so about the $42 million in the

next in the next four years, projects that that the agencies had hoped to be able to fund, in which we now don't think we are again, hopefully that that picture will change, a lot of milestones for south of market nonetheless. and the good news side, for the open space rec and park had their conceptual plans for a new park at 11th and natoma. this was a new park for soma, that was approved by the rec and the rec and park commission. folsom street, one of the one of the priority projects for eastern neighborhoods ever since we've been working on it, that is actually going to be moving into construction this year. and similarly, gene friend rec center or south of market rec center, is also going to be also started, are going to be starting construction as well. i'm sorry. the slide was one one off. okay for market octavia. we

had appropriations deficit. i'm going to just go on to the next slide here okay. for market activity. we had an appropriations deficit of about $20 million. and a small difference between what we had previously expected in terms of fee revenue and expenditure over the next five years. again, some major milestones for this project area in this past year, public works and mta completed the upper market streetscape improvement project that included a wide variety of bike, pedestrian and placemaking improvements on market street from octavia to castro. public works also completed a smaller scale first phase of the page street neighbor way. rincon hill was one of the first area plans to institute geographically specific impact fees here. the fee revenue had been are, as had been expected to pay for a couple of new parks which have been implemented and completed, then and then also to fund streetscapes throughout and in this past year, again, public works completed, one of the major streetscapes along

harrison street, one of the priority streets for streetscaping. the transit center district, district plan like south of market, had really been impacted by the slowing of developments. similarly, it was, the park anticipated a small number of large projects paying large fees. we have about a 33 million appropriations deficit of this plan area. but most of these projects are waiting for funds, include the impact fee contribution to the tt and streetscaping throughout the plan area. and one of the milestones for transit center district. one of the things that this agency, this this commission did is through the deliberations of the transit district plan. it enabled some of that money to be spent outside, specifically in china and chinatown. portsmouth square, one of the major priorities for rec and park in that community. they completed their environmental review and

concept design was approved as well. also moving forward, transit center streetscapes for mina beale main and howard, with the advertisement for construction bid beginning this upcoming year. and transit center has on top of the impact fee revenue. it has a cfd community finance district or a mello-roos district. and because this is an ongoing tax that the developments pay on an every on every year, the revenue stream is more reliable, because of this, we were able to fund some projects through the cfd that we had previously been waiting for impact fee funds, including streetscaping, some new busses for muni and funds for the bart station enhancement. and finally we have visitacion valley. this is one of the other areas that had geographically based impact fees. most of its revenue had

been anticipated to come from schlegel development agreement. the executive park, both the projects which have not advanced at the same time schedule as we had originally anticipated, i don't believe either of them has started. and like balboa park, impact fee revenue is expected to come in a more modest with funds going to agencies as they come in. however for some of the projects, we keep a roster of projects that the community is looking to fund and the agencies have been able to be nimble and find other resources for them, including some improvements, some pedestrian and trail improvements around mclaren park at the edge of visitacion valley . sorry. okay, in terms of our next steps, we do not anticipate programing, any funds for projects, for new projects? certainly in the in the next two

years in, in very modest amount in the next five years. ipic had said that they really would like to focus on the projects that we had committed to through previously appropriation cycles. and so we're keeping a list of that projects, and we'll be funding them as the money comes in. and we have a process amongst agencies to see how to how to distribute that money. it's usually based on need or what project needs it strategically at a given time, as we've been doing this, i just should say the agencies have been very cooperative and working with each other so that each could get as much or as money that is absolutely key to their projects and move it to the next phase. i think it was what we'll be doing this year is we'll be taking this time, since we won't be doing a lot of new programing, is to look at our process and maybe improve it. we've been working with our our data team, in terms of revising the monitoring reports so that they're not in a, in a static pdf format, but more in a dynamic, dashboard. we're going to be looking to do that with our projections as well, it's

usually our team that does it. we'd like to see an interface where other agencies can tap into that, and they can use it as tools to, to their needs outside of the area, plan fees. but other city wide fees, and we'll also be we've also had a we had an intern this past summer who developed a, a story map that kind of tells the story of ipic. we'll be publishing that as well. again more of a dynamic interface as opposed to just a static pdf report that people can tap into. and before i close, i just i think i had mentioned one of the three. i mentioned the three cacs that we work with eastern neighborhood cac, which had been a 19 member body, it actually sunset, per legislation this year. i just wanted to just take a couple of slides to thank them and to, to acknowledge the work that they did with us in coming up with implementation plans, just kind of some of the highlights of

what the cac did for us. we raised sorry. just some of the highlights we've raised on the eastern neighborhood side, about 160. excuse me, $62 million. when you combine them with south of market, which was part of $62 million, that goes up to about $130 million, we had a lot of major projects that have been completed, but perhaps more significantly, the eastern neighborhoods cac had advocated on some very specific community based projects we created with the admin department a challenge grant program in eastern neighborhoods. there are a couple of streetscape problem projects, and 22nd street in dogpatch, and also in dogpatch, minnesota grove. and the project that i mentioned were all community based and advocated for on behalf of the cac, yeah. and just in general, their their advice and their help with us was invaluable. they looked at other things beyond impact fees,

and we really appreciate the work that they had done. they've done for us, and this concludes my presentation. and i'd be happy to answer any questions. great. if that concludes staff presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again, please come forward. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. thank you, i'm going to start us off here, first i want to deliver a compliment, and then i have a big picture question. and then a couple of detailed questions, and then i see, some of the other commissioners may have questions, so i want to say this

is my favorite report that we get annually, as planners and as a planning commission, we do a lot of visioning, and we have projects that come in front of us, area plans and specific projects, approvals. we attach conditions, we talk about improvements, and then it kind of goes into a black box and, you know, and someday we could be driving down a street and see a public improvement, and what this report does is capture in one place the implementation, of how we bring all those improvements to reality in an incredibly detailed and organized way, it shows the interagency coordination, the specific improvements, the source of funding, how far along you are, what you project for the future based upon a realistic, if somewhat disappointing, future for the next few years. but in one place, we capture all the detailed work that you

undertake, and i just want to give you, you know, a huge shout out for the amount of work it takes, to carry into reality the vision that we all see at the beginning. and i just, you know, every year i look forward to this report because i just think it's such an amazing tool, i also take great, i get great confidence in the work when i see how far along the older area plans are in terms of implementation. that it can take a while, but when we look at the older area plans, we can see proof, that, you know, the improvements are playing out as we envisioned. and while it is disappointing to know that the funds are moving in more slowly, this report shows the consequences of what's happening in the current economy and the consequences of the decision to defer fees, but it does give me it does inspire confidence that

while it may take longer, we're not losing sight of the improvements that we, you know, attached to these specific area plans and projects and that they are still very much in our sights, that we are also looking for other sources of funding, and that they just don't, you know, go into that black hole where we never know if they're going to emerge again. so a big round of thank yous for the work that it takes on the implementation side to actually get stuff done, i really appreciate that. it does. but when i say it inspires confidence, that gets stuff done, it makes me think about. so how is the infrastructure process going to work with the west side rezoning, which is not tied to area plans, not tied to fees and yet there are questions about how we think about the infrastructure there. it's a different process, i have confidence it's given how well the process is managed, that the process will be managed very

successfully with respect to infrastructure on the improvements that come with the west side rezoning. but i wonder if. director hillis, i know you're planning a future hearing on that. if you might want to say a couple words about how you see this rolling out, because i don't envision that it would be under epic, that it would probably be some other kind of process. but i know a number of us have raised questions about how you see the infrastructure rolling out. so maybe say a few words on that. i'd say, i mean, i thank you for the words, and matt and team do a great job on this, and i think we did a great job on the area planning that led to this. but this isn't the only place that capital and infrastructure planning happens, right? there is a capital planning committee that the city has that looks kind of beyond. and also in these area plans, there are days that you've all seen that have capital components to them, whether it's betrayal, power station or treasure island or hunters point shipyard that are working and in in effect and then departments

are doing their own broader capital planning. and we're certainly working with them in aligning with them when we did the housing element and approve the housing element, we were working with mta puc, rec park. of note, you know, to look at these issues about capital needs and infrastructures and public public amenities that that may need to accompany, an increased, increased growth in growth in these areas. so we're going to get more specific on that as we continue. and like you said, we're going to have a hearing where we have those agencies here to talk about how the infrastructure is going to keep up with with potential population growth, growth. but that's happening, you know, even regardless of our planning and zoning. but i think we need to align those and align those better. and, you know, we're doing that as part of the housing element. you'll see this happens to a greater degree in

areas like eastern neighborhoods or potrero power station, where we're taking former industrial lands in, either making them office or residential and new neighborhoods. treasure island, you know, probably as as we saw from when we talked about treasure island, some of the biggest infrastructure investments that are happening, one, because of need and two, because we're going from a former military base to a new neighborhood, to a lesser degree, it happens in like areas like balboa park, where it's more infill development and then more so on the reservoir. so, you know, we're going to marry those two as as we move along. i think what we're envisioning in growth and rezoning is probably more akin to balboa and vice valley, and probably less like eastern neighborhoods, where this kind of conversion of former industrial land to residential, but nonetheless is critical and important. and we're undertaking it with those agencies, and we'll have a chance to dive deeper when we have that item before the commission. it's true. i

appreciate hearing that. i, you know, recall from having, you know, read the documents when we did the housing element that wastewater capacity transit and, you know, specific types of parks and open space were all mentioned as issues that, you know, we need to think about as we plan for a significant increase in density. and i'm very happy to hear that, you know, we're going to have one of these deep dive hearings that talks about how the infrastructure planning is going to work. but as i say, you know, reading the ippc report gives me great confidence that as a planning department, we know how to manage the implementation of this and follow through, so very pleased to hear that there is, you know, a hearing intended to deal with that. so then just one specific question. so throughout the epic report, there are references to the different terms are used. and i'm wondering, mr. snyder, if you could define those for us, some

of them are funds transferred, funds appropriated, but not yet transferred. funds programed, funds committed. i get from your, presentation on that until we have the cash in hand, we don't go build the improvement. but i wonder if you might just spend a moment defining the those different terms. sure. so i have on the screen just on the back of your slide deck, just in case this came up, so just what we mean transferred. it means when you see these tables throughout the report, it means funds that have come in and have been transferred to the agencies to implement it. so they they we've received them. they're in the agency's hands. most of them have been complete, but it means that our commitment to them is kind of been taken care of. right. so the other one and then we and then in the tables, as opposed to transferred, we have the term ongoing commitments. and then within that there are two columns previously

appropriated, funds not yet transferred. it means that in previous budget cycles, when we had expected to see the money, agencies went through the budget cycle, they had those projects appropriated. they are kind of set up to be able to spend them. they have the authority to spend them. but because the revenue didn't come in as we expected, they're not going to happen. if they haven't been able to happen . they are essentially our first tier of priority, as the money does come in and then programed our projects further out that have not gone through the budget cycle that we had kind of had expected to be able to say, we have the money for the next five years, but we may or may not, they have not the agencies don't yet have authority to, to move forward on those projects. they're less of a priority just in terms of how we're thinking of how what the order of priorities are, as the money does come in. great. thank you, commissioner imperial. thank you, president diamond, and mr.

snyder, for giving us a thorough presentation. and i appreciate your concern about the west side, you know, infrastructure in the west side and how it's going to be implemented as we have this current infrastructure for the ipic, i do have a question, though, in terms of the and just to make sure that i understand it right, the projections before and after fee reduction legislation. so before, so let's say for east, for market octavia, the projection before the legislation is $59 million. and then after and because of the fear reduction legislation, it will be 32 million. so let me get to that slide myself. and the difference is, you know, there is a difference of, you know, how many millions some of them are hundreds of millions,

okay. are we on? okay. so yeah, i'm looking into your presentation around key issues and consideration fee reduction legislation. yeah. yes, essentially. so we started this process. we started in the spring and then we run our projections. and it was just based on, you know, as it had been last year, just projecting when these development projects are going to come in. at that point, we didn't know about fee reduction or the deferral. so, so we so this is the amount of, of, of revenue we had thought we were going to get the fee reduction and the deferral most again, because it's being that that revenue is being kicked out of that five year cycle, that is the after. so the 113 is what we're now expecting, given the legislation that's, that's on now on the books. and there is and the difference will be, yeah . and the difference is what what we had essentially hoped to have to move forward in the next five years, which at some point we're going to, you know, have to prioritize as the what's moved forward, what moves

forward and what doesn't. i guess just i just want to be clear, some of this is timing and some of this is reduction in fees, right? the board and the mayor passed a fee reduction of 33. so you know, if before if the same projects continued, there would be $100 million or so reduction due to the fee reduction. the rest of it, i think, is either timing or us anticipating that projects just aren't moving forward. in a way, the after is still a projection that we're not sure if the if the, you know, certain projects will go in the right timing. if there is the right timing, that is the 113 million that we were, you know, so but as a result of the fee reduction, you would you know, it still would be $100 million reduction just because of the fee reduction. some of this may just kick out beyond 2029. so it's just a timing issue or i don't know if this is accounting for some some projects. we thought were happening before are not happening. columns assume the same project projects. so set of projects. so i think 100 million is for timing and about 100 million is because of the fee

reduction. is the $200 million makeup i guess. and then my next question, because in the next two years, there will be no new programing, no, no projects yet are going to be, you know, because we're kind of like flatting it out, i guess, is what we call it, so in the system of the prioritization, i guess that's my question. how how are we being prioritized? because every it seems like every plans have these projects. and so how are these plans are being communicated, also the cac, you know, there are some area plans that have casi's. do they have a role in terms of the prioritization of projects? i'm they they have in coming up with the expenditure plans. we've been trying to keep the so again, so projects that are on the books agencies have authority to spend. that's our first priority since they've been they've been planning on it. and we kind of check in with them. impact if they can. we checked in with the cacs, you know, are you okay with this,

this, this, this kind of way? that's sort of the first stage of prioritization, everybody seemed to think that that was the way to move forward, the second part is when the money actually does come in, if we have a small amount of money, the question is, well, who gets that that that money. that is more about just being strategic. and that is, you know, what projects at that stage can best implement that project to move their project at the next stage. and they're the agencies have been very cooperative and saying, we know there's not a lot of money. let's be strategic . how much, how much little money can i take to make this, this, this project move forward? and that's kind of the spirit that we've kind of been doing that prioritization. we don't we don't try to, you know, be we don't try to make more of it than that. we try to keep it as simple as possible, so that is, that is that the other thing is, is, you know, if every everything being equal, who's been waiting the longest for that money is kind of the second thing that we would look at. so that's good because, no, i remember i was, you know, i would attend some at cac and i

was also part of the eastern neighborhood at some point. and there are those conversations of like, this project has been sitting for a long time. and, you know, and i and i remember during those conversations like, of course, the city department will present and, you know, explain their, you know, their comments. but i think, you know, again, i want to emphasize also as well the importance of the cac. i think that's my point, because cac is are really, really looking into this and really more in depth on what's going on in their neighborhood, i am and thank you, mr. snyder. i really appreciate this. and it comes to the conversation in the west zone rezoning and how that system or the infrastructure in a way that how we're going to be prioritized. right. and i guess these are the overall conversations that we need to have at some point, whether what kind of bodies are we thinking of when we're, whether to

eliminate as of the part of the eastern neighborhood plan, you know, or the eastern neighborhood cac or some sort of, body like that, i think it will be appropriate to have that , also, i, you know, i know that the legislation is temporarily impact fee reduction is temporary, but i think it's also good for the planning department. so also, present to the board of supervisors about these projects that are going to be prolonged at the same time, you know, we're anticipating that you know, we're hoping in 2029, you know, but at the same time, beyond that, there will be more prolonged projects on this. so i think we should also inform the board of supervisors that there are these epic projects, acts that are going to be 20, 20 year long project, and transportation is the biggest expenditure we have, so those are my comments. commissioner

braun, yes. thank you. so i just want to echo, the person diamond's comment about how exciting it is when we had when we have these area plans in place for a while and we start to see that this infrastructure is getting built out, you know, in my day job, i work on specific plans and area plans and, some of the funding and financing strategies behind the improvements in those plans. and then i walk away and i kind of sometimes wonder, and i want to go back and look at, okay, so how did that unfold? and so sitting here and being able to see this, this process happening and also just being, you know, resident of the city and, and walking around and encountering these projects, it's really great. i know, for example, drury commons walk through that all the time. it's a wonderful, wonderful space, i also want to just agree with the and echo the comments made about the importance of thinking about capital, planning and prioritization and funding prioritization for the west side

in particular, and for areas that we are projecting a lot of growth in, in the future. so i'm definitely, on board with the importance of that. i mostly just have a few observations. asians, you know, i'm really glad to see the epic process work, to have this effort to prioritize projects when we know that the funding is fairly limited. and i always go back to thinking about the fact that these impact fees are not really intended to address existing deficiencies. therefore addressing the impacts of growth. and in a way, the fact that our development is slowed and then the fee revenue slows, actually kind of relates very directly to how these fees are supposed to work, where it's the new growth and new development that we're trying to address with the infrastructure projects. you know, to address this impacts, so i'm definitely disappointed to see the slowdown in the revenue, but i, i take heart in the fact that we have such a robust and comprehensive prioritization and planning process for this new

infrastructure. so i really appreciate that, my only other observation with this is, and this is very high level. and we'll see how this plays out. and i know surely the city attorney's office is paying attention to this. but there was a supreme court ruling two weeks ago in sheetz versus el dorado county that has struck down an element of how these fees are calculated. programmatic level, net fees. the nexus study that determines the appropriate level, has what you can now do as part of that calculation has now changed. i won't even try to explain the details of it, but, so now i believe this goes back to the california courts. if i'm not mistaken. and so i'm just curious to see how this unfolds and to see if we ultimately need to reexamine the way these fees were initially calculated. the nexus studies i just think it's something to be aware of. it's something that just needs to be addressed throughout the whole california planning world at this point. but i hope we're keeping a close eye on that.

thank you, vice president. more i like to share with my fellow commissioners the appreciation for the epic process and the effectiveness of your reporting, over the years, it was one of the best days in the year. today, i'm sitting here with a slight knot in my stomach. i would be dishonest. not to admit that, because i think the, deferral or longer implementation of what really is necessary in many of these projects is delayed by an unforeseeable number of years, and we don't really have a clear answer. no looking glass of how to resolve that, but that said, i do think that the strength of that process is not only the interagency, the participation of really by name known cabs, casi's around the city, but also , i think the staffing of a

group of people who have done this for the years and have added credibility, depth and most infamous continuity to the process. i am delighted to what i see, but i am concerned is, perhaps a mild expression of where i am. and i like to ask you some very basic questions, almost like a kid opening its first piggy bank when it starts saving. i like to ask you a couple of questions on your opening slide. key issues and considerations. fee reduction legislation. you're talking about fee deferral, revised fee indexing fee weight. when we talk about project sponsors can elect to pay a majority of their fees at completion of construction rather than at commencement. we're talking potentially about very, very long time frames between a first down payment and ultimately realizing the fee. that in itself has an impact of how we

plan and cost the projects, which we are designing to the benefit benefactors of those fees. as costs go up, materials go up, labor goes up, etc. so by the time when we approve something and get paid for it, potentially ten, 15 years later, there's hardly any correlation between what was originally planned and committed to be funded versus the actual fee of what will be necessary to build what we promised. we would. i'm going to go forward quickly and then you can respond. the same thing is with revised fee indexing. lock in fee at approval rather than at fee payment. that pretty much addresses the same point i raised in my first observation fee rates are capped at 2% a year. that may be just barely a cost of living index adjustment, and does not really at all accommodate for the reality of

fee and cost increases that occur in actuality. not to talk about the inefficiency of delaying projects, which should be mostly happening concurrently with projects we build, you cannot add a new park when the project is already 20 years old, and it does not really deliver the type of project that we would like to see. i'm asking critical questions not to attack you, but to lay out of how i observe the reality of some of these key issues. the other thing is, i do not see a time frame at all attached to these fee reductions. is this from now on for the next 20 years, or is this kind of, tied to particular returns in the economy by volume of investment, etc? i do not have quite the right terminology, but i would like to see a termination of these accommodations in this legislation in order to return

as quickly as possible to the realities of being able to deliver complete rather than fragmented projects. the fragmentation of the types of, things that benefit from our fees is something that you laid out quite early in your presentation, and you spoke about, transit, complete streets, recreation, open space, child care, community facilities, facility fee and administration, all of which are essential for the large area plans to properly function. otherwise, they become suburban islands, car dependent and mostly not exactly the social success stories for which we had planned them, and then, your, your fee rate by, by -33% discount that that ties back to

my question. for how long are we going to do this, so i two of them i think i know so the so the deferral i believe is now permanent, that that developers are going to be able to pay at construction from here on going on out, the 33% reduction is temporary, and i can't quite remember what the time frame of that is. i think it's yeah, we heard this legislation, the board passed it. i mean, it was a three year, you know, the tac, which was the what we call it, the technical advisory committee that advised on fees and the inclusionary rate resulted in the legislation that we all heard. the board passed that came up with the 33% reduction. there was a reduction in the inclusionary rate as well. so those are things that will be revisited by the tac, the tax schedule to meet every three years. but i think that even gets just triggered. back to the original rate. if the tac doesn't doesn't take action.

yeah, that's my understanding that the 33% at least has a, has a has a definitive end date, and depending on what they get their entitlement, i think the absolute end date is something around, 2029, as i recall, on the top of my head, i would like to see some nuance with paying at the end rather than at the beginning. when projects stretch out over that length of time, i do think there has to be a commensurate partial payment along the way, because just using one example, we are building projects with lower parking ratios in anticipation that we would keep up with robust transit improvements. you can't have it both ways. we can either basically destroy all streets with being over parked because we are not providing enough parking, versus we are providing sufficient transit to make no car ownership viable and attractive. yeah, you can take it through all of those considerations. just a little more detail on that deferral,

right. normally those fees were paid at first when the first construction documents or when you start a construction, not when we entitled the project. so the fee would be paid when you pulled building permit and started construction. now it's paid when you complete construction. so generally, i mean, i think the longest time frame on that, when at least we see projects starting construction three years, perhaps five years for some larger projects, but generally the planning could be done. we know generally when you start construction, i think there are a couple exceptions, you know, that continues and completes. so there is that gap, you know, could be three or it could be two years. it could be five years for larger projects, for da projects that take a longer time. these rules are kind of baked into the into the da. and this wouldn't apply to those. i appreciate your answer, and i assume that you all settled enough to devise other life

saving mechanisms in order to kind of properly balance of what fees versus realizing project will remain. so i'm comfortable with everything you're doing. and again, i still have a knot in my stomach. and i think housing fees weren't deferred. right. that's just the housing fees. so payments for housing in lieu, housing fees. we're are still at the beginning of construction. thank you. commissioner if i could just add just to the knot in your stomach is that i think the important thing is to recognize where we are with these area plans. so most of them have been alive for 15 plus years. so most of what we envision for eastern neighborhoods has happened. most of what we envision in market octavia has happened. so in many ways, this timing is not as terrible as if it were 5 or 10 years ago. i think the one plan area that is probably mostly affected is around central soma. and so that's the one that we are looking at. but for the other ones, it's not quite so dire. so just to put that in context. commissioner williams.

thank you. i was i wanted to direct this question, mr. schneider, thank you for your presentation, i'm new to the board, but i mean to the commission, but, so this fee reduction legislation, when are we going to know if it if it's a failure or if it's if it really spurred construction. if it really spurred development like it was meant to do i that's a big question, a little above my pay grade, i don't know. i guess we can look at, you know, where we, where we thought we were on the projections, see if those projects are coming in sooner. it would be a good clue as to, you know, if, if this has started to have an effect. so we we've we've for the way we do our projections is that we do kind of specifically kind of predict when each project is going to pay their fee based on,

you know, past, what the past trends are. and then sometimes we'll go in and we'll, we'll look more specifically at the, you know, where the project is in its pipeline as it has been actively looked at and so we'll make a prediction. we were purposely more conservative this year, even before the fee deferral, just because we had been a little bit off in the previous years. so yeah, we can we can see if those projects start coming in sooner than what we had thought might be one way to see if that if this if it has an effect. but a lot of these trends are, you know, they're much bigger than, than what we can kind of plan for. hopefully the, the fee reduction and the deferral does help, but it's just just one component. so we won't know. we won't know for i mean, when i'm just looking at this because i see all the, the, the money that's not coming in and, and like commissioner moore said, she had that knot in her stomach and, and you know, just thinking about all the, the stuff that's been planned, all

the nice community benefits, that and infrastructure that you guys have planned and then, you know, the shortfall. yeah. so so i mean, so this gets revisited every few years. i mean, is this, this fee reduction sunsets. it's so it automatically sunsets. so the city in essence will be forced to kind of relook whether they want to continue it, alter it, you know, keep the fees at the at the prior rate to assess. so that's when it will, you know, will happen. the tac is scheduled to meet every three years. but i mean, this is kind of baked into the legislation that that created the fee deferral. so it's you know, the city's got to act in three years. so the fees go back to where they where they were, okay. in things like central soma, i'm just going to get like those projects aren't happening. so some of the things with commissioner bron's point. so some of the impacts of those projects, 6,000,000ft!s of offie space aren't happening. that may

otherwise require the infrastructure to happen. so it's a little chicken and egg to that, you know that. that brings me to the question of all the entitled projects that are out there that's supposed to be getting built and, and like, is there an incentive to like, push these projects along, that would be something, you know, that that would be interesting to, to , to look into. i haven't really heard much on that front, i've heard a lot of discounting, you know, with the fees and stuff like that to spur, but actually holding some of these developers accountable to the promises that they've made, like, i'm thinking about the, hunters point shipyard for one, that would be interesting to see how how how we could, like, do something to get that those projects moving. yeah thank you. i wanted to

follow up on a suggestion that was made by commissioner imperiale and understand whether it's already in process, which is, this is report allows us to see the consequences of the legislative actions that were taken, which we saw. we made recommendations on it, went to the board. they adopted it. we understood the reality of, you know, building nothing isn't helping. so, you know, if we reduce the fees, maybe that'll spur things along. but there are consequences to that. and this report does a really good job of showing those consequences, and i'm wondering if the report goes to the land use committee or the full board, we offer we offer this presentation to them as well, we can we can reach out to them again and see if they they'd like us to come. but yeah, we had been. but we offer it to them every year as well. so i would encourage you if they haven't yet accepted your offer

to offer again, especially the land use committee. umms, because it feels like this is incredibly valuable information that should inform decision making. i i think based upon all of our comments, you can see how valuable we find it. and the board ultimately is the entity that adopts the legislation. and it feels like this would be really important for them to have the benefit of your presentation. so maybe you should renew your offer. okay. thank you. thank you. okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on. item 18 has been continued. items 11 a and b were pulled off of consent and will be considered now for case numbers 2023 hyphen 003652c, u and v a r at 3901 noriega street. i'm sorry commissioners, that was continued. i'm talking about item seven for case number 2023,

hyphen 008256ca at 261 broad street. the conditional use authorization. good afternoon, commissioners. gretel gunther, planning department staff this project before you requests a conditional use authorization to demolish an existing 1821 square foot single family home and construct a new two storey, over basement, 7995 square foot residential care facility with 12 bedrooms for 24 residents. the project also includes the merger of lot 038 and 039 on assessor's block 7114 into one lot. the project is located in the ocean view neighborhood between orizaba and capitol avenues in an r-1 zoning district. the ocean view large residence special use district, the priority equity geography. special use district, and a 40 x height and bulk district. the existing single family home proposed for demolition is a two storey over basement, five bedroom, single family dwelling.

the existing single family home is currently vacant and is not a rental or affordable dwelling unit. the replacement structure is proposed to be a two storey over basement building containing a residential care facility with 12 bedrooms for 24 residents. the project also includes two bicycle parking spaces and restoration of one on street parking space. the project proposes no new off street parking, although the project results in the demolition of an existing dwelling unit. the project provides a new residential care facility. residential care facilities are institutional uses and are principally permitted within the r-1 zoning district. the new residential care facility will have the capacity for 24 residents, which will increase onsite density. the proposed structure is fully code compliant and its design is compatible with the surrounding context. in terms of massing, scale, and material. further its design is consistent with the planning code definition of a residential care facility, which states such facilities shall display nothing on or near the facility that gives the outward

indication of the nature of the occupancy, and shall be located in a structure which remains residential in character. to date, the department has not received any public comment in support or opposition to the project. on balance, the department finds the project to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, and finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and to not be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. residential care facilities are a desirable new nonresidential use and are identified. need for seniors and people with disabilities. for the housing element of the general plan, and for these reasons, the department recommends that the planning commission approves the project with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions and i'll turn it over to the project sponsors for a brief presentation. thank you, thank you project sponsor. you have five minutes. i see it comes up .

there we go. all right. dear president diamond and commissioners, my name is jeremy schaub. schaub lee architects. i'm here representing the owner of the project mercy care, thanks for hearing from us today. i also want to thank gd for all of her help, and we're happy to present this proposal to you today, the project site at 261 and 263 broad street is an approximately 4687 square foot lot in the ocean view neighborhood. it's currently occupied by a vacant single family dwelling and a vacant parcel. the two adjacent properties to the east are also

owned by mercy care and operated as care homes for 14 residents each. the subject site is two parcels in total, measuring 37.5ft wide by 125ft deep. the existing two storey over basement building was originally built in 1890 and significantly altered in 1980. it is considered non-historic. my client purchased the property in march of 2023, the previous owner had rented out some bedrooms during her ownership of about 20 years, but there's no history of evictions at the rent board and, the tenants had all left by 2021. the proposed project would merge the two parcels into one and construct a new two storey over basement residential care facility. the building will provide 24 residential care beds for ambulatory and non ambulatory patients on the first and second

floors, with operation and staff rooms in the basement. these would be operated in conjunction with the adjacent care homes at two, five, seven and 259 broad. mercy residential care operates four facilities in san francisco. this site would be the fifth after the two adjacent locations are the other facilities are in the mission and portola district. these are all fully licensed and routinely inspected by the california department of social services. each of these homes provide what's known as residential care. pardon me? residential care for the elderly, also called care homes, these are for residents who are supervised 24 hours a day, one main distinction is these do not provide any medical care or nursing on site, they are also typically smaller than assisted living facilities. it's sort of a middle ground between before more advanced care is needed. it's particularly suited for memory care patients or those with limited mobility. language

assistance here is available in english, mandarin, cantonese and vietnamese. the approximately 24 residents will have 6 to 7 daytime staff and 3 to 4 overnight. residents may have memory issues, so each of the exits is alarmed, and movements around the building are fully monitored. staff are available to help with sanitary needs, and each meal is fully catered along with snacks. my client, tommy lee, is here with me. he's one of the principal owners and licensed rcf operator with mercy care. he has personally supervised the design, construction and state certification of the other homes, starting from 1999. he can answer any additional questions you may have about the facility operations. oops sorry about that, regarding the architecture of the building, hope to clear up a few concerns the entire building is classified as a type r 2.1. occupancy under the building code has strict requirements for

building area, including fire ratings and smoke barriers between floors, and at least two means of egress from all residential areas. the building will be fully sprinklered and fire rated. the basement area is only for staff, providing areas for storage and operations, and most of the food preparations will take place in the adjacent buildings of 257 and 259 broad. access to the building is strictly controlled. all visitors will be directed to the main door to check in with staff and ada lift provides access to the second floor as needed. the bathrooms are accessible to each resident, although the use of them is often supervised. the number of bathrooms is based on the california code of regulations title 22, which applies to all community care providers, which asks for one, one restroom for every six residents, next slide and then roofs are certified at the state level by the department of social services. california

licensing restricts rooms to a maximum of two residents, and our project provides 12 rooms as double occupancy in. each floor has room with common areas for socializing. last but not least, the exterior of the building features high quality, durable materials, predominantly wood grain siding and trim with aluminum accents, as i mentioned, we're here. if you have any additional questions, i understand you may have some for the operator, so have at it. thank you. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. seeing none. public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner williams, thank you for your presentation, this is my district, so i, i took interest in it, and it's much needed. senior care facility. but i did have a question about, the rear yard. i know i, i noticed that

there wasn't an exterior place for these residents to, to go and, and i'm wondering, if there's an opportunity to, like, make a nice, patio or an exterior, place for these 24 seniors, and so i'm wondering. yeah there is a sorry, jeremy schaub again. chablais architects, there's a 30% rear yard. i just didn't show it because it didn't fit on the slide, and we will have a ramp down so that residents can use it, also on the first floor, we specifically have a kind of juliet balcony that will, residents can sit there and look out at the yard, i'm just thinking about the care facility that, my father in law is in, you know, and, when we go to visit him, there is a nice place , in the, in the rear, of the

home, and they have it, you know, very nicely set up and i and, you know, and i'm wondering if, you know, i'm wondering if that wouldn't be a good idea for, for you guys to think about , commissioner, my name is tommy lee. i'm the operator. definitely. this is one of the element we will address at the same time, i do want to. commissioner understand, most the elderly are under our care, is handicapped. basically they have stroke or mentally, they cannot taking care of themselves. and by because so happen with this one i will connect the rear yard with the other facility. basically we have talking about at least 3000ft!s open space for the elderly to enjoy. so you so you

plan on on building or joining these two spaces? yeah. there's no doubt about in my mind. yeah. there's no doubt about it. so i'd like to see that. i mean i'd like to see something, you know, i'd like to see what you guys come up with. i think i think it's great that you're going to do that. i think it's important, for, elderly folks to have a space, like that, to enjoy. and so i'm glad that you're you're thinking about that. but i would like to see something in the. we will try to do the best we can. yeah. definitely. i believe that's a really need of this kind of facility in the whole city and believe a lot we can less and less because most of the small ones because the real estate booming. they sell the property and walk away. and i believe most of you don't hear about this thing because nobody come up and apply to do things

like that anymore. i am one of those so committed to do to help the elderly. that's why i'm here . thank you. and commissioner, it is shown on the plans in your packet that they have a part of. the proposal does include a fully code compliant rear yard. it's not typical that we have folks show a landscaping plan that's not a normal part of any submittal package at the rear, but they do show, you know, the size of the rear yard. they show the door access, stair access, all of that. so it's a fully code compliant rear yard that will be part of this project for sure. i understand it's code compliant. i would just i, i would, i would like to see like something in, you know, a plan that that's what i'm getting at. believe me. so is that is that possible? can we add to the design conditions that they

access to the rear yard. and the design plan would be shown as part of the design requirements? we have a you know, we have that standard condition about design refinements. can we add that? i will say i had the same question, and my guess is a number of the commissioners did i, had the good fortune for many years of representing the jewish home of san francisco when it was, entitling its assisted living and memory care facility. it's actually when i met commissioner moore, she came out to tour the site, and asked a lot of incredibly important, detailed questions. and i no longer represent them. i'm not practicing law anymore, but i do sit on their board. and what i know is that the garden facilities that they have are an absolutely critical component, both for, marketing purposes, but for visiting, you know, as you indicated, commissioner williams, not only do the

residents sit there by themselves, but when their families come and their children come, it's a place for people to sit and occupy. and i'm assuming you have that mr. lee and some of your other projects. and so i'm, i'm wondering if that couldn't just be shown to the staff and developed in conjunction with the design condition that we couldn't specifically reference. you know, the development of the access to and the development of the rear yard. sure. and maybe just for clarification. so access to the rear yard from the interior and exterior is shown specifically on sheet a 2.1. so on sheet a 2.1, it shows that there's a stair going down from a common corridor to. can we put up a. did you have a picture of that handy. we can put it up. so and that also shows both on that. on that floor plan as well as a 2.1. it kind of shows how from the front there's a gentle grade and slope that gets you down there. if there are mobility issues that would get in the backyard. so is there something beyond those two

accessibility points that the commissioner would want to see? so-sorry in the top left, you can see where there's the staircase going from a the centralized corridor. there kind of goes through up and there's a stair to the rear. so that's sort of the primary from the main living. where's the is there a ramp for people in wheelchairs. and then at the front top right where it says exit and fire access. that's where it's a really gradual grade that goes from the front of the property. and then if we progress to slide, sorry, it's upside down here to slide a 2.0, you can see where that, ramp along the side of the building lands into the rear patio, so that's where somebody who maybe couldn't traverse stairs would be able to get down. oh. can you show us on the diagram? we have two different sets of plans. oh, okay. yeah. sorry i'm looking at the set that's online. there's also another way that i think

through, other access could go through staff areas on the ground floor. so it looks like three different sort of access points to the rear yard. can you. yeah. so i just want this is the right elevation showing the ramp along the exterior of the building, and i, i cropped it to make it show up a little better. so now we'll get. now we'll go to the site drawing. and my apologies. this doesn't. oh i don't know. yeah that probably shows it best gg thank you. can you rotate that so you would go out the front door and come down the side pathway. is that what you're saying? yes. yes okay. yeah. the rear yard is about eight feet below the front. so we have the extended

ramp to go down to the rear yard right. and do you would it not be possible for them to show us the landscaping plan for the rear yard, you know, in conjunction with the design refinement process? absolutely. yeah. so can we add that to the condition? i think that's what i'm hearing. commissioner williams really asked for. yeah, yeah, just just mike, yeah, i'd like to see a nice plan. you know, it seems. i mean, is that going to be accessible that that. absolutely. the rear yard. okay. all right. that's what i thought. yeah. it's a weird kind of hybrid because you know, of course residents will have access to it, but they kind of need to be monitored. so that's why we have them going out the front door. and will be escorted into the rear yard. got it. all right. thank you. thank you. commissioner, let's see, commissioner, vice president moore, i think talking talking

to mr. architect, the drawings fall a little bit short of the presentation, i had a very difficult time identifying an elevator, which is not drawn the way it's typically drawn. there is apparently one, i question the number of bathrooms, but that goes hand in hand with the question. how many people stay here overnight? so each floor would have 12 residents and 3 to 4 staff total. so there is overnight 24 residents and 3 to 4 staff where would staff sleep, staff are awake. staff are awake the whole time. i'm sorry. this the staff are awake the whole time. there's no restroom, no breakout room for staff. that's in the basement. in the basement? in the basement? yes. it's a little bit harder to understand. i had a question on your drawing. a2, where you're having storage, both for storage

b03b02b01 and it says not for sleeping, and then b05 is a room that has storage, but it could potentially be used as a bedroom . is that an omission of a of a word? it's not intended for sleeping that i believe that was at the request of gigi, but i believe that was merely an intent about the size of the window. like it wouldn't meet the size of the windows don't meet egress. so that's why they're marked as not for sleeping. because the staff, again, because the room itself is accessible from the staff area. i would assume it's a breakout room where there may be a card for somebody to take a nap without it being a bedroom. potentially. yes. it all those these little vague misses in your drawing, just raise a couple of questions, including, as, president diamond indicated, the two two bathrooms for 12

elderly people, seemed very, very minimal, particularly, when you start lining up, i assume if you're older, perhaps you have to go to the restroom a little bit more frequently, that seems kind of like very, very under undersized. and i'm very concerned particularly because with that much staff, you only have one small bathroom for staff downstairs, that there is a competition for, two few bathrooms with too many people. and again, you said there are rules and i understand the rules from what i observe, the project that commissioner diamond is referencing, this is apparently the bare minimum. it's it is the minimum which is higher than what the plumbing code itself requires. it's, you know, it's a different set of regulations about care facilities. can we ask maybe the project sponsor can address that, the what seems

like, a limited number of bathrooms, and maybe you can also talk about, you know, i know one of the questions that came up when we were doing the jewish home project is how the residents, when they awake in the middle of the night and are somewhat confused how they find their way to the bathroom, especially when it's down the hall, are there lighted pathways? if you could just i know, just talk about that a little bit. somehow. i would like to clarify a little bit. most the people moved in with us . either they have a stroke or mental health problem because the alzheimer, the people with a stroke, basically they cannot go to the bathroom by themselves. they live caregiver help them somehow, two people help them. so basically that's not something that normally people, everybody walk into the

bathroom. they don't. they have to one by one to do that. and at the same time, yeah, certainly we can have 2 or 3 more bathrooms, but there's a waste of space. i rather have the space create more bedroom for them, because right now we have 100% full capacity and keep on getting called from adult protection agency, public health nonprofit organization. as for bed, unfortunately i said my hand is tight. so by theory, yeah, certainly more bathroom is better, but you cannot use it because basically you need people to take them down there, let me say the following, we are not trying to attack. attack you. we're trying to understand. and we all have, i think, a lot of compassion for what we're seeing happening with elderly care facilities. many of them

have closed. so i commend you personally for still being in the business. that seemed to be a vanishing business here in san francisco, but we like to understand is and i think you explained it well, when people come to that sad stage in their lives, there is apparently come first, come serve and, you may have to wait with or without accident when it's your turn to be taken to the restroom, which means on this particular care model, there seem to be sufficient bathrooms because people cannot go on their own. and, just i have to accept that, although it's difficult to accept, but, i nevertheless, i appreciate that you are still operating facilities and that you are going to move forward to add another one. let me leave it with that. thank you. so i wanted to reinforce what vice president moore said, that i think this might be the first rcf, you know, residential care

facility we've seen in 4 or 5 years, at least since i've been on the commission. and we are deeply appreciative because there is an extraordinary amount of need, and to have somebody actually develop a new facility is something we're deeply appreciative of, we of course, as commissioners, you know, take great comfort from the fact that department of social services licenses this. and we don't want to redesign your project, we look at it, you know, we have questions based upon our relative or lack of relative familiarity with, you know, how our parents use these facilities , how people we know use these facilities. we think the gardens really important because it provides you know, a lovely, amenity for the people who are there, you know, the bathrooms you will design. however you know, you need to, to meet licensing requirements. i had a question about the lift. quite frankly, the lift can hold one person at a time. yeah. one

person, only one person with a caregiver with. yes. so you've got to push the wheelchair in to help them. so i think a concern that we have is or at least i have, and i assume the rest of you have 12 people upstairs, you know, if they all need the lift, is there a long line up for people to get up and down the lift? how does that operate in practice? and have you used this at your other facilities as a lift? yes. so talk to us about your experience with that. yeah. based on our experience. that's why the picture you see, the lift i have, that's what we using next door. and you have the same number of people up you know, that need it. 12 people. we have, put it this way. i built the first one, 14 people without any knowledge about how to pull people up because all i understand long and arbitrary only lifts downstairs. and later on, i found out, oh, long actually live in second floor. the first three years. i'm the

one personally push the wheelchair up to the second floor and push pull it down to the first floor and learned the hard way. then when i build the second one right next to it, that's i installed the elevator and then we combine two of them and using it and really, if we can use it really effectively, no problem at all. by elevator you mean the lift? yes as opposed to a simple, straightforward use elevator. and besides, you won't see people trapped inside because you can see them right at the spot. okay. well, i mean, i think i take comfort from the fact that, you know, dss is providing overall licensing. the building department will look and make sure it meets our codes, so, i am supportive of this project. would like to see it move forward with the amended

condition that we talked about to deal with the rear yard. i don't know if anybody. oh, commissioner braun, i did. you want to. oh, commissioner. no no, no i thought yeah. i actually just have something very quick to say. i just want to thank department staff for, for the request that the basement level be labeled in those spaces as not for sleeping, that was something that without that label would have concerned me because they are the exact same configuration and have the same number of doors as the actual spaces for sleeping upstairs. so thank you for making sure that that was very explicit on the plans, since i don't see any further comments from commissioners, i will. make a motion. yeah, i will move to approve with, with the requested change, i don't know quite how to articulate the change about the backyard, though. i think it's a it's

additional language on the design condition, saying staff will review the, landscaping plan for the backyard. sure. yeah. that's it. plus the notation on the plans to make sure that it says that they're not for sleeping purposes in the basement. yes. and that is in the plan. so i'm okay. so with those that additions, i make a motion to approve. second. okay. let me see if i captured that correctly, because i'm not sure myself, to be honest with you. but we do have a motion that has been seconded to approve, with conditions as amended, to include, a design condition for additional staff review for landscaping, and that the basement rooms are not intended for sleeping purposes. is that

correct? very good. then commissioners on that motion, commissioner williams i braun i commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i commissioner moore and commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places us on the final item on your agenda today under your discretionary one second. mr. ohlone, do you want to break? i think there's a request for a short break before we okay. welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, april 25th, 2024. commissioners, we left off under your regular. excuse me, under your discretionary review calendar for items 19, a and b for case numbers 2023. hyphen 008570 drp.

hyphen zero two, and v r at 1256 howard street. you will consider the discretionary review. excuse me, and the zoning administrator will reconsider the request for variance. thank you. jonas good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of a planning application that proposes to convert a second story commercial floor space to four dwelling units with a deck at the rear of the roof of the structure, there are three variants variances that are requested for rear yard, open space and exposure for the two rear. most units, there are two requesters. the first, nicole radev of 747 natoma street, the adjacent property to the north, who is concerned that the proposed deck will impact privacy and cause noise in a calm and tight area? her

proposed alternative is to not build a roof in any way that will attract people to that area. the second doctor requester for us, kelly of seven five 7 to 7 five nine natoma street, the adjacent property to the north is concerned that the proposed deck will invade the privacy of the second level of his property and is expected to cause noise theft and fire risk. this proposed alternatives are to abide by the current zoning rules. to date, the department has received no letters in support nor any letters in opposition to the project. staff supports the proposed project as it seeks to convert office space to the city's housing stock, with an existing within an existing building envelope, there is no expansion to the building. the ground floor of the existing building occupies the full lot, while the second floor is set back approximately 14ft from the rear property line , per code interpretation 188 a deck is allowed to occupy the roof of a non-complying structure, provided it has an

open railing no higher than what would be required by the building department for code. the proposed 359 square foot roof deck serves as open space for the four new residential units, is modestly sized, and is set back five feet from all building edges. both the adjacent buildings, to the north, also occupy nearly full lot coverage and have small decks at the rear. these are also existing non-complying conditions that are similar to the proposed projects. request therefore, staff sees no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking doctor and approving. thank you. if that concludes staff presentation, we should hear from the first dr. requester. you have five minutes. hi everyone. nicole rudolph on behalf of neighbors on natoma street, which is rear facing to the property in in question, i find i was

misquoted, i would prefer a more collaborative approach to this communal space. i just want those to know that, it is a delicate ecosystem, and we're more concerned with privacy and security. given that soma is already a highly dense and vulnerable neighborhood. that said, i was reached out to i was contacted by a lawyer by the, the building owner, i believe, directly, and it was requested that we, we commune on a communal approach or a variance, he listed some options verbally. that thread dropped, and no one, followed up. so i'm here just on again on behalf of my neighbors. and just to request more information to see what can be done, because this is, building or or or a structure in question

will definitely, not only block natural light, but i, i think induced noise in which and i don't know if, sorry, i can't find my words properly, but i just don't know if the project has been properly evaluated or if the space has been reviewed correctly. given the amount of noise that this would induce to what is otherwise a very small and quiet and compact area. and again, we're just concerned about, considerable more amount of people, having access to this rear space given our, our security, that's it again. i'm nicole. thank you. we should hear from the second requester. you also have five minutes. thank you. hello. my name is ali. i manage the property on

seven, five, seven natoma street, i also live there, when i first contacted, i was contacted by sf planning team. i believe it was elizabeth mao, regarding this variation order, it was a variation order regarding open space. that's going to take the whole. it can extend through the whole back of the building and it's going to be very close to my property. so my first reply to her was, since this is a variation and this is a code, it's supposed to be rejected without even considering, unless it's the last resort of breaking the code . and she told me that when she talked back to the engineer who structured this plan, he told her that, oh, it's going to cost us some money and we don't want to do it. so that's why i proceeded and submitted the doctor, i have multiple concerns with this one. it's of course, theft noise, all this stuff. i

have a deck on my property, so i expect it to have a deck on this property. but the planning was very clear. it was not a deck. it was an open space that people are supposed to gather over there. and if i want to build something like that, i would assume that all the neighbors are going to go mad about it, anyway, so i was contacted two times by some business, by the company, by who was going to do this project. and i told them, i'm not a hard guy. i just want you to adhere to the code. go back 15ft and make precautions to number one. there's no theft. nobody can jump on my property. and to make some kind of fence small fence, that kind of block noise. if you want to make it open space, i'm okay with that. but just take my precaution and concern because i think the code should be implemented. unless everybody should go crazy of course. again, i don't oppose deck on the back and i was

shocked when i see this today. it was a change of wording. they were saying deck. i was saying on the original plan. it wasn't saying deck, it was saying the full space of open space, which people supposed to gather and supposed to talk and maybe have dinner or something like that, which can cause all kind of side effects to my, to my, to my self , as a resident of the property and to the other other residents of the property. that said, thank you, thank you, we should hear from the project sponsor. you have ten minutes if you need it. good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners, and this being my first time before you welcome, commissioner williams, justin zucker from ruben, jason rose, on behalf of the applicant. i see why i didn't look before the properties in the red district, which is a district that is

specifically encourages residential. we're in a situation which the office economy has severely, tanked with over 36% vacancy rate and the realistic probability of commercial development like this, the b and c category coming back and actually getting fully occupied is. it's bleak, to be honest. and so hearing the message heard from the office to residential movement and trying to adhere to adaptive reuse, to find ways to bring vibrance and activity to this area in the western soma area. we've proposed proposed a project that will add four units to this area . i will come back to that, the unit count in a moment, but i wanted to just highlight that the property is located as mentioned in the western soma area, which is one where there is it's typical to not have a mid-block open space as shown here in the property. property

is right there where that hand is. i use the light line so that everyone can see that it is all built out to the property lines with rear decks at the back in this area, it's common for open space to be located at the rear as mentioned by, the by staff. there are balconies at the rear of both dr. requester's properties. there was some conversation and analysis to looking into whether there could be roof space on the top of the building, the top, top, the second and top of the second floor, unfortunately, that's not really feasible to financially feasible. they would require seismic upgrades in order to perform that. in addition to there is equipment, rooftop equipment that would have to be relocated. and, and more importantly, there are like courts there that help provide light and exposure down into those units. as mentioned, this project does require a variance for exposure. so we've tried to thread the needle to be able to find a way to increase and maximize exposure while also providing family sized units.

i'll speak to the variance first and then head towards the dr. requesters concerns. in this instance, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that warrant the variance request. and here the building is a full lot and was constructed for commercial purposes in 1926. long prior to the prior code controls. due to the historic a rating of the property. significant alteration of the building envelope is not really feasible. there is resulting practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because due to the existing configuration of the historic building, demolition of portions of it would be required in order to provide a code compliant option to add housing. here it is. the project is a necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. as noted in the red rm, residential is principally permitted, and their conversion to residential is a substantial property right that would be allowed. there's no material

detriment to the public welfare or material injury to nearby property because, as mentioned, the character of the proposed project is in line with those of nearby. there's been recent development at the adjacent property to the east. 124 units were added at 1298 howard street, also with limited open space. and, there they used a common alley to provide the majority approximately two thirds, i believe, of their open space, which was a alley, here the project is also in harmony with the intent of the code and will not adversely affect the general plan. the project achieves many objectives and policies in the general plan, adding residential units to a underutilized property, commercial site and it includes the western soma area plan, which encourages the production of residential units while maintaining a mix of use for neighborhood businesses. here, while we appreciate the comments raised by the doctor concerns,

we do not believe the doctor requester's concerns warrant taking dir. in this instance. with regards to the excessive noise, we don't believe that that will be an issue. as noted, these are. there's only four units that would be potentially using this and i will note this here. we will be proposing to reduce the unit count to three. and i will get into that plan one momentarily. but with the reduction of 4 to 3 units, we're reducing the intensity with people who would be using that rear space. so that would reduce the amount of noise. and in addition, there is residential units that abut that space. so there would be natural naturally occurring monitoring so to say so that people would be respective of the noise levels, we do appreciate the privacy concerns that have been raised, and we are amenable to adding a privacy screen, adding increasing the rear railing of the that abuts that's parallel with the dr. requester's property, increasing that to a

height of six feet and adding a privacy screen with artificial foliage, as shown here in the slide. with regard to security issues, we do not believe that any would be anticipated since this is privately located open space that's only accessible from the residents from the inside. one cannot get into the building without access. there is a the front door lobby is at the ground level and you have to have a pass through security to get there and then with regard to fire issues, again, we do not believe that that will be an issue in this instance. the project will be constructed to current building code standards and have fire resistive materials, including one hour fire rated flooring. as mentioned, privacy screen can be added to the back. it would be six foot tall with that artificial foliage. the wall or fence we'll call it would be five foot setback from the property line. to address some

of the concerns raised by the doctor requesters and in light also address some of the variances that are being sought. we today we seek to modify the project, creating a three unit project with three private open spaces in the back. the open space meets all dimensional requirements and size thresholds by the code. i will note though, however, that that the open space for the front unit is not directly accessible. so i acknowledge we do acknowledge that that non-direct accessible would still be, an exception from the typical private open space code requirement. i'm going to go back so you can see that full layout. i apologize, but i just wanted to highlight the layout there for you, the other thing that i wanted to acknowledge is, we appreciate the, the, desire for increased housing and are trying to

achieve that here in a way that allows for adaptive reuse of this building while also being financially feasible. so that it actually can be constructed. we've looked at the numbers and tried to look at a proposal that would be possibly two units, but unfortunately that does not work out in the environment to actually, achieve the financial needs to become constructed. with that, i close my presentation, but i'm available for any questions. thank you. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review matter. again, you need to come forward seeing none. public comment is closed. dr. requesters, you have a two minute rebuttal. thank you again, decreasing the number of units is not going to decrease

the capacity of the room over there because it's going to be the same number of bedrooms. so i expect the same decision is going to be there. the structure is going to be different. so i don't think that's a very helpful adding screen. it's not going to block any noise. one of the comments was saying that all the properties have open spaces at the back. that's not correct. my property doesn't have open space in the back. we have a deck. just it's a fire escape in case someone would go out. go in. it's just five feet by five feet. less than five feet, actually, three by two or something like that. it's not that big. and the property next to me, i believe same thing. they don't have open space. so it's shocking to me that a property should have open space in the back. at least this doesn't have all the neighbors that i've seen over there. none of them have this situation, i request also, as i said, better

a solution for security and for noise and to adhere to the code again, keep push the line back 15ft instead of currently i think it's nine. thank you. i actually have more questions. i feel like i'm not in the know, in regards to the building's perspective wall, i've heard different, substrates. i think brick was or, some sort of concrete or substrate was, was proposed at one point. i would like to know what the height the, the projected height of this would be because that i tend to agree that i don't think that any sort of element like that, it's probably just going

to be more of a fire hazard than it's going to do to prevent any noise or, or, or help with security, i also wonder if there are city laws and ordinances in regards to or if we can work collaboratively about, time and curfew and how this is mixed use space is going to be proposed for use, again. again, i'm just trying to gather knowledge here based on what i was, i was provided, and a bit of a choppy sort of comms. so i don't know if you can answer those questions directly today, but i'm, we're we're very happy to continue to collaborate in a measure that is helpful for both parties, i'm, i'm not a nimby. i'm, i'm more of a yimby. i, i appreciate more housing. i love soma for its vibrance and i and i anticipate that we'll have

more of that. but, with respect to all parties. thanks. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. justin zucker from ruben genius again, i just wanted to respond to some of the comments that were made, one, with respect to the project would block natural light. there's no expansion of the exterior envelope. the only addition would possibly be to answer the previous question would be a six foot tall fence instead of a 3.5ft tall guardrail with privacy screen. i do not believe that a six foot tall fence that's five feet set back from the property line would create any block, any natural light that would go back to the doctor. requester's property, and then with regard to security, i do appreciate the they're raised they're raising that issue. but as mentioned, this will be privately located, behind secured access. and no one it's not open to the public. and then with the reduction in the size of the open space into three private patios instead of one large patio, it reduces it

eliminates the potential for a significantly large gathering by either one or even all of the units together on a collectible holiday. building parties will say it would be limited to these small spaces, which are the largest. one is 140ft!s, which, frankly cannot accommodate a significant group of people that would likely project create noise that would be disturbing to folks. and then also just to reiterate, with it being the rear space being adjacent to the two residential units in the back, we would envision that the residents there would be mindful of both their residents and the neighboring residents, given the close quarters. thank you. with that commissioners, this matter is now before you. i just wanted to ask one clarifying question first, which is can they have a six foot tall privacy wall? i oh, can they have a six foot

tall privacy wall? sure, it's a good question. the short answer is yes. like there, that would be permitted without a variance, because even though the rear yard they're proposing is not compliant, it's still the rear yard. they have. the planning code allows basically delineating walls within open space. if you want to separate open space for different private up to a maximum of six feet, anything beyond that would would require a variance. so, mr. winslow, when you and i had talked about this previously, you had given me a somewhat different answer, not related. you were citing a different section, i think i did, and i misspoke because the zoning administrator has the final word on that matter. i was going on the a permitted structure on a non complying portion of a building is allowed, subject to those things that i stated in my report. thanks. okay. i have some comments, but let me open

it up first. vice president moore. let me first start to say that i'm very excited about the idea of using smaller buildings of this kind and introducing residential. we have already heard very loud and clear that doing it with larger buildings is excessively expensive and creates significantly more barriers than what we're doing here. so i would like to ask the zoning administrator as to whether or not the code is really changing if we go from 4 to 3, because i would prefer for . but by seeing the open space as a common open space as it is in all stacked apartment buildings, and the amount of open space that is used here in form of a roof deck, is calculated by the number of people, or it could be slightly larger. so i'm asking you, does the introduction of three units from a code point of view and

from a variance point of view, change the equation. sure. i'm happy to try to answer that. and just to kind of address it on a larger context, it's to be clear that this property was rezoned during 2013 during the western soma process, it was rezoned to ready mixed, there is an understanding, there's like an expectation you're going to have residential on the floors above, either converting spaces like this or adding or building new, and clearly soma is tight, but, another requirement in the western soma special use district is actually roof decks aren't. they're permitted, but they don't count towards your usable open space. they the very strong intent was to put essentially common open space in the rear, that was kind of the understanding. that's the way the code requirements are set up. here is why we have the 25% required rear yard starting at the first level, where there's a residential unit, which would now be the second floor. so that's very purposeful. then after that, you're your open space requirements here. the size per unit actually doesn't

change in this district if it's common or private, private it's 80ft!s no matter what. and however, the code is kind of agnostic on how you meet that requirement. right? it can be through all private open space. it can be through all common. it can be through a combination of both. if that's if that's what work. it really is agnostic, on that issue, clearly if you go from 4 to 3 units, the overall required amount of open space is going to go down by by 80ft!s. o that's all it is, from an open space perspective. yes. that's the main difference. the total amount of required open space is going to be reduced because the number of units is reduced. i mean, in an area where the majority of buildings are 100% lot coverage, the rezoning somewhat committed to realizing that, ground-floor open space is really not doable if you want to do a reuse scenario, and that said, i would like to find an amicable way by which the common

deck substitute for open space is indeed properly treated to degrade the privacy and setback requirements that we typically apply in any other part of built up, properties within the city. and i think typically if i have my roof, my roof deck, lingo. correct. it's five feet from all sides. that's what we had a minimum minimum expect. and since the doctor requesters are on the north side, i have to question that there is indeed an effect of light. however, in any situation, wherever you live in san francisco, in a multi unit building, you have roof decks and you sometimes doing an afternoon here, a light chat or somewhere in the background, but that is part of urban living. there is nothing other than the noise ordinance. if there is a

noise after i think 10 or 11 p.m, that is when you call, and complain that there's excessive noise. anything else from 8 to 10 or 8 to 11 at night, 8 a.m. to 11 at night is standard of what is allowed everywhere else in the city. so i'm just giving that as a background, because some of us live in taller buildings. i live in a four story building where a buildings next to me are five six stories where i hear noise, not noise, but activity. people talking, people, watching the blue angels or something like that. and that disappears when the witching hour at night happens and it's quiet. so i just want to let you know that that is typical. and this building is as proposed, other than the variance that is, we are asking the zoning administrator to grant is code compliant all the way through and is typical of what happens everywhere else in the city. so

those would be my comments, and i would continue to support four units over three units. i do like the different sizes and the potential social interaction of different family sizes. in this particular type of building. okay. zoning administrator cheek, did you have i'm sure yes . thank you. thank you for those comments. and thank you to, to everyone who's spoken and to the project sponsor for the proposal, you know, there's been communications in the past that there may be some challenges with the variances as proposed, and i appreciate that response. as i mentioned, the zoning kind of calls for this type of thing to happen. and we see this a lot in soma because you have a lot of commercial and industrial buildings that are, you know, make sense to convert them to residential uses, and it's not uncommon for especially upper floors to not be compliant with the rear yard requirement and people to fill those out. the nuance there is that there's

still the expectation that the units are going to be of a certain quality, right? so that they're meeting exposure. we often get roof decks to make enough open space, for each unit, so that was kind of the issue here. i don't think there's any question that conversion converting the second floor to residential makes sense. of course. it's just a question of is there a strong rationale for doing it in a way that's not meeting the code, and again, the four units as proposed move down to three units. but i do have a quick question, which is, i understand both kind of the desire to not have to do any more construction or demolition than you have to. obviously, that raises costs. you want to do as many units as you can completely understand that, the existing building on the second floor right now, it only extends into the required rear yard by eight feet, five inches, and, you know, theoretically, if the proposal remove that portion and created a code compliant rear yard, it

seems from the layout, there'll still be an opportunity for four units. all four units would meet exposure, and the entirety of the open space requirement could be provided in a code compliant rear yard, which is kind of the intent of the zoning. and we've definitely seen projects in the past shave some off buildings, the more you propose as a bigger thing, you know, eight feet is, you know, not the biggest reduction of a second floor. could you speak just to whether or not you all and your team explored that as, as an option to kind of create, you know, a code complying, you know, four unit scenario for the building. yeah, we looked into that along with the roof deck. as i mentioned, the issue that arises is the historicity of the property with it being an a rating rated property and a potential contributory to a historic district, there's concern about actually being able to implement that type of change at that degree, it's one thing if it's just shaving off a little bit here, tapering here and there, but yeah, eight feet

is about 10% of the building. and so that in our mind it seemed it would be a an ask that might not be achievable from a historic perspective. okay, yeah. i haven't had any conversations with any of our preservation staff on that, but i mean, just from experience, i mean, this is at the far rear and not visible from the street and no character defining features back there. so i don't know if that would if there be a strong preservation rationale for removing that area, i'm happy to look into that further, but i didn't know if there were any other, issues that were being raised again, one other thing i wanted to point out is, and i was going to raise this even if it wasn't asked, like the six foot high wall would be permitted. it is a bit of a nuance in the code, but it would be permitted, but given the nature of the interior of this block, you know, i wouldn't be against a variance for a taller fence or structure as well, if

it was determined that that was what was really needed for privacy and sound attenuation. i just wanted to be clear for deliberation that i understand we're kind of talking about a six foot, and i don't know if there's any desire from anyone to go more than six feet, but i just wanted to be clear that i wouldn't. i don't think a variance for that would be a huge impediment, given the unique nature of the surrounding and the really tight, proximity of these different open spaces, but i just wanted to check on that. and then obviously the, the roof deck issue, i think, as was mentioned, was more of a just a cost issue. so i had a different question. i'm all in favor of converting this to residential and finding ways. and of course four units is better than three, so long as it doesn't result in variances for which we can't find justification. i don't think we should be using variances as a way to change the code, there needs to be specific criteria that are met, which is up to you, mr. teague, to figure out

if we meet that and i didn't think that four units was going to produce so many people that it would be that much noise, that it would be an, burdensome, feature for the adjacent neighbors. what did concern me is it looks like the two rear units, it's the bedrooms that are in the back that face onto the deck and i had privacy concerns about the people in the other units being able to use the open space and be directly adjacent to the bedrooms in the units in the back. so i actually like the plan that has the three private open space areas, because it eliminates it's the privacy concern for the people that are going to be living in the building, so, so, you know, i see some attraction to that. i don't know if it can also be accomplished with four units, but to me, it can it. let me ask you that question, this is something we've done very quickly in preliminary, but i think that we could achieve

something, the issue that i raised with others, which led us to this proposal, is something that i know that is near and dear to some on the commission is that it would require potentially a three foot setback from the rear property line, not a five foot setback, give me one moment. i'll pull up a mock up that we have. can i get the overhead, please? sfgovtv. sorry. i was just trying to close. captioning makes it a little bit difficult. so with this option, this is a. as noted, the back would be three feet, that it would be three

feet there to provide 80 foot. sorry, 80 foot options for both the two front, units. then the rear units would have access there, this has been very preliminary. as you can see, we haven't fleshed it out. but in terms of the area right here, acknowledging we could put a six foot fence there with privacy. so that or five foot something like that, so that this window, this is a living room right here. and this is a bedroom right here. so that those aren't having the line of sight into there. that's oops, sorry, so that would be there. and then again, we can still put a fence all the way at the back, to create this space, though, we did lose the setback that was provided for the 1298 property. but i think that it shouldn't be an issue because this is a five story building with a blind wall. there's no windows or anything there. i don't envision there could be any privacy concerns or pathways for noise to come with that being tucked

up against there versus the five foot setback as previously provided. thank you. i suppose one option is to also do a variance to have smaller decks so that you could still have the five foot setback without the 80 foot, 80 square foot size. i will say i i'm indifferent as to whether it's three units or four units. i do like the idea that they each have in this particular scenario. well, i normally agree with you, vice president moore, that the common open space is a nice solution. i really don't like having, you know, the people being able to come right up to the bedroom windows, that feels like an invasion of privacy to me. that's that's going too far. so some arrangement with the private decks seems to me to be an appropriate way to proceed. and i don't know whether that is through doctor or through the variance. and i'm interested in hearing what others think. commissioner koppell can you maybe opine on those questions? is there a way to keep the five

foot setback, but still have four private decks? so i mean, physically, yes. my concern is even for these two interior ones we see on the screen here. deck one and deck two, you know, those are enclosed by six foot walls. those are tight. and they're down in a low canyon. i mean, the question of the real usability of that space, i think it starts to be a question even as proposed here. i think if you squeeze that in another couple of feet, you're talking about a couple of boxed in eight by eight little outdoor rooms. i think that could get i think that is a question that would have to be considered. yeah, i'm not so concerned about the six foot tall walls. if it's, you know, it's got looks like there's several feet separating it from the bedroom windows. so i don't know that we need to have like this enclosed pen back there, which is what it seems

like. but if part of your concern is the parameter of privacy and that's visibility. you know, i'm a six foot tall person, my line of sight starts at five foot six. so if i'm in my bedroom or i'm on the deck, i can see over a five foot high debt. fence into somebody's private space. that's true. that's kind of part of the how would you design these to be private, you know, maintain the privacy of the two units at the rear and yet usable. yeah. going to make a motion to approve with three units, with three separate decks, keeping the five foot setback and six foot high walls amend as as you as you want. i second that second that, vice president moore, before we say that, i want to get this project approved, i still i'm looking for four units, we have done that on another project, actually, on polk street. david baker designed that project. and what we did is we created, like,

a three foot kind of demising line, like a, like a, like it was not a fence, it was actually shrubbery that separated the two units from, what ultimately becomes the common deck. and you basically stepped through that. you could not go onto that three foot, privacy line because that was really basically the proper setback, like a juliet balcony keeping people from the away from the units, but allowed them to be basically participant of the rest of the open space, which you would respectively, access through the living room. so you still had four units. you you remember that case? there's been multiple cases over the years where we've had, you know, multiple all units, kind of, directly facing onto common open space and concerns about it. and

those were the only exposure they had. right? the only windows they had were under that open space. so if you want to have a window open or a blind open, that's the only view you have. and so if that's going to be common open space two, how do you create that transition and create space that's adequate for that unit? at least some kind of buffer. so i think we've had multiple projects where that's been an issue. and i honestly i think this i think this gets challenging here because it's so tight back there, which again, to me, i keep coming back to, you know, if you pull it in eight feet at the second floor, it it gives it more room back there to create better spaces. you could still get four units. they may be the rear units may be two bedroom units and not three bedroom units. but you still get two two bedroom units and two one bedroom units. you get the four bedrooms. i just keep falling back to. that is like, is that really the best overall solution? because it seems to solve so many things, with an understanding that it's,

you know, you have to demolish eight feet off the second floor in the rear, but it seems to take care of a lot of things and still allow four units with enough space in the back to provide adequate open space and buffering for the neighbors. so that's kind of for me, it just seems like that kind of gets where we're going better than some of these other really tight squeezes, but that's that's just kind of how i'm thinking about it. right now. i understand it's, you know, it's like a little game of tetris trying to figure out how to make it all work and get as many pieces in there as we can, so i'd be curious to hear how other commissioners feel about that, if you would pull back four feet, you still need a variance, but the impact is basically resolved in a manner that you can have four units proper separation for privacy for units, the rear units and still have a well-sized deck for the rest of the people. that's true, and i would probably want to ask the project sponsor this. my

guess is that if you're going to put back four, you're probably going from 3 to 2 bedrooms anyway. and at that point it probably makes sense just to do eight and make it completely code compliant as the as was intended. but, i don't know if you want to speak to like, i don't know if you've sketched up like you said, you did explore kind of a scenario where you pulled it in, have a code compliant rear yard. i don't, you know, there's lots of different interior designs you can look at. i'm assuming you could you know, still be able to get a two bedroom unit and those rear spaces, all things considered. so in looking at it, with this being a concrete building, it it eliminates the feasibility. the project wouldn't go forward to shave off anything. it's so costly to demo some of that. just even a foot of a concrete building to shave off a little bit. we're talking significant amount of work that they're isn't enough to make this a viable project. at that point. commissioner braun, yes,

i have a just a question of the project sponsor. would you mind, since it sounds like we're heading towards a vote on the three unit option, would you mind just showing that again? since i don't have that in front of me, i get the computer overhead, please. one more look at it. so this is the full floor plan layout. i'll let you digest that for a couple of seconds, and then i'll flip to the back, rear yard. the open space. can you walk us through this? it's really hard to read on the screen. it's really small. yeah, maybe. zoom in. yeah altillac unit size. could you also give us a unit size, please? yeah one moment. so unit one, the front unit is a two bedroom unit that is 1065ft. that is at the front of the property unit two, which

is, paper south. it's a three bedroom unit is 1058ft!s. and then unit three, the top of the paper is a 1034 square foot unit, three bedroom unit. and i just want to comment with the as you'll you'll notice the stairs here at the front. the stairs come in from the directly up, and there's no real way to sort of dovetail the existing stairs to get to that second floor. it would require significant work. that's why that front, front, top of the page is really constrained location to try to work with because you really get cut off from the rest of the building because of that corridor. okay. okay. thank you for that, for walking through that. i, you know, i think that i don't like losing the additional housing unit and, i would love to see a way to get that still in here, but i'm, i'm

kind of looking at the three unit solution as an offer of a compromise and a trade off to help address some of the concerns raised in the discretionary review. because now, instead of a fairly it's not that big, but instead of a larger shared common open space at the rear of the building, there are now these three smaller spaces. i think they're about 100ft!s, 107ft!s. and i'm forgetting the other one, but they're all fairly modestly sized. they're very directly connected to a single unit rather than shared across the units. i think this does to me, this this helps me to feel like some of the concerns have been allayed about the possibility that there might be sort of a one unit having a larger party in the deck or something like that. now, these are, you know, fairly modest, just spaces for people to go outside and get some fresh air and some sunlight. and maybe now, you know, a couple people could gather in them, but they're really not very large, and so, you know, with that change, although, again, i would have preferred to still see four units in general, i, i, i can

get behind approving, this, this, this change. i think it's already been commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded. the motion is to. are you approving it as is or are you taking the take dr. and the dr. and approving the three unit three units with separate open space decks and a six foot high privacy walls. is it five foot the five foot setback and the six foot walls? what's the five foot setback from what? the original five foot setback not reduced to three. okay from the deck, from all sides. okay. so with the three private so that we're taking dr. or the motion is to take dr. and approve with the three unit configuration with separate open space decks

with five foot setbacks and all sides and the and the six foot and a seven foot high privacy wall. yeah. on that just to be clear, is the privacy wall just at the rear or is it in the internal deck separations as well? i would think between at the rear and between. so all privacy walls. was that your intent project sponsor, when you showed it to us, the internal walls between the three decks, there are two of them. why don't you put it up? we want to make this as clear as possible. so there's no ambiguity going forward. we do the overhead side. the computer's giving me. can you make it a little. yeah. so we want the six foot wall at the rear. but between the between the three decks, that's

six feet between. between the decks. yeah that's six. what are you proposing? that's where i had initially offered to provide privacy from this unit here to there. if the commission is requesting privacy screens between right there and right there, we can be amenable to that. i just our concern was trying to allay the impacts to this bedroom here from the open space. there i was assuming to protect all the bedrooms. but there's only one. is there only one that has visibility to the deck there? correct. so these two bedrooms over here go up there and there's no that's their own private space over here. this is a living room. oh, sorry, i apologize. i made it difficult for you all. i didn't have the labels. over here is a living room, and this is just one bedroom right here. i understand what you're saying. my intent was to protect the bedrooms, so i. i don't necessarily need to see one. the way i'm looking at the screen on

the left side over here. you're saying left? left the other side. yeah, yeah. to go to the right a little bit. oh right here. i wasn't necessarily meaning there. okay. so you're suggesting right here. yep. yep. you want one right here. no no, i just want to make sure i'm clear on that. thank you. can i, i heard you say you have a photo of the space. would you mind just showing the space? because i'm curious how the six foot wall or the six foot privacy barrier would fit into everything. i just want to take one look at that. yeah, this is a view from my. how do i get overhead here? sefcovic, can we go to the overhead, please? that this is a view from my balcony on the left, my neighbor flanking me on the right and his view directly down into the perspective space. thank you for sharing that. you know, so i want to make sure the six foot privacy barrier wasn't going to be like at or above the level of

your balcony, for example. but it looks like when it's set back five feet from the rear of the property line and you're above it like that, i'm comfortable moving forward with the six foot. but for clarity, though, this is the space in question where the six foot wall would go correct. it would be, yeah, five feet further in from the rear of the building. i still see how that could you see the, the my neighbor downstairs, his patio will be will be probably subject to sufficiently covered by something that's six foot high, even five five feet back. but can i ask, did the two neighbors want a six foot wall? no, you don't want a six foot wall. i don't i don't know, that's something. that's what mesh link with with fake foliage that could maybe attract rats or something like that. i don't see how that would add. would protect us from noise or security. it would do neither. and do you want a six foot wall?

i don't see how it's okay. commissioner koppel. what? i mean, i, i don't feel strongly about the six foot wall at the back, that's for sure. and i don't want ■it to block lowe units that that's a problem. i just wanted to protect the bedrooms. yeah. so it seems like the internal six foot wall is important, but the one at the back could be the, what what had been proposed originally, it was clear. i'm sorry. can you. i believe 3.5ft guardrail. right three foot eight guardrail, 32in. yeah. like this. what do you all feel about that? i'm open to any amendments. i just wanted to get a motion in there somehow, some way soon. so we had one. so i think all we're talking about is the rear, you know, and i am concerned if it's

six feet blocking the lower units, that doesn't seem appropriate. so people okay with the guardrail there. instead, i took care of the guardrail at the rear just to make sure we don't risk cutting off sunlight for the lower portion. yeah. jonas, do you get that? changing the perimeter wall to guardrail, and i think so. okay yeah, i think we all. because. because we're not changing that. we don't need to really include it. so it's really just let me try to capture it unless there's more deliberation. mr. cheeks, that does not foreclose that when this project is built, that somebody may come and go to dbi and say, i would like to have the privacy screen increased and height, it does not prevent that from happening. the six feet would be permitted at the rear. okay. so the second books are out later. yeah. we are concerned about privacy regarding the bedrooms, as mr. commissioner brown and couple itemized and, leave the rest for the future people to work out with each other. okay,

commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded, to take dr. and approve a three unit configuration with three separate open space decks with a six foot privacy wall that directly faces a bedroom on that motion. commissioner williams, i, commissioner brown i commissioner imperial i commissioner copple i. commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. zoning administrator would say i'll close the public hearing on the variance, and i likely to have my arm twisted on this scenario. i will i will point out that the interior, the private open space, six foot walls was somewhat exacerbate the lack of exposure for those rear units that impact the light there. i mean, i again, my elegant solution apparently

wasn't elegant enough, but but, i may want to explore that just a little bit further with the project sponsor, so i'll take it under advisement. but i, i'm generally supportive. thank you. thank you. oh, boy .

sfgovtv san francisco government. television.book. th you. >> (music).

>> my name is orlando i'm the owner and operator of sf pizza. >> pizza is my expansion growing up i loved pizza and loved to cook and been in corporate banking jobs my that whole life wanted to own a pizza or and moved to san francisco 45 years ago and couldn't find pizza i like so one day of saving and trying to figure out what i would like to do to fulfill my dream and to literally must be that i went out on my own toes an interesting things skills i again have to working on the slight changes to find the right product and came up with something i enjoy and continue it. so the positive important thing in years and years and

years of trying to get it where i like it is for the sauce i use a unique sauce to bring out the flavors have to mats and capital improvement plan any and using use a high quality of cheese the products work together more important to me have a high quality of pizza and made with love and what i try to keep it to be a comfortable foods or food and that's what i try to over and offers so having a really bus illegal day in the community and rile appeal to me and that's what i was trying to accomplish i have thought when i got into pizza the main thing if i can, make a great cheese pizza

he can do anything like growing up that's what i brought to to and now called san francisco >> you know, i remember when i was a teenager, they did i think it was on the grammys, boss scags narrated the san francisco scene and they did a spot on it and how it's evolved and convergence of multi culture and the emergence of gay community, lgbtq, it was not even called that then.

>> so like any good listening back then, i played softball and a friend on the team said, the fire department is recruiting women. i took the test in 88 and 89 i got hired. and i always say this, it was like a perfect career, it was like social work, i love that connecting and helping people aspect and physical. so i was like a social worker with an ax basically. and i just thought, this is like, this is it, i hit the jackpot. part of my story is, i grew up across the street from a fire station and as a young girl, i use today love going in there and would go in there whenever my parents voted, they the old fashion voting machines. sxifs in awe of the place but i never saw anybody that looked anything like me.

it was all men, it was all white men and so, i never knew that i could do that. this was in the 70s. and i worked in several different things and i was at the pride parade in 1991. >> and the chief of the department, she i did give her courtesy card to come in, i remember it to this day, june 30th. the hand and hand together and i was with a friend of mine and fire fighter named anita prattly came up to me and we had a mutual friend and we didn't meet. and she came by the table and as soon as i looked at her, i said hi o to my friend, i could see she was super athletic. >> and she knew my friend and she said hey, do you want to be

a fire fighter, here's an interest card, join us. >> there was something about her that could roll with the punches and also give a few punches. she would be great and i just knew it. i did give her the courtesy card. it was my greatest achievement. >> and it was something i saw myself, yeah, i love a good crisis. and i'm good in crisis and i'm good on thinking on my feet. and i'm you know, super fit and physical, maybe i can do this awesome. >> but just in terms of pride in general, being able to go to pride and be who we are and be who i am, it's like the sense of digity and equality and inclusion. i was always incredibly proud to represent the community and

to be doing service for the community, because that's what i love doing. >> coming to san francisco for me, was really key because i love the city. the city is so vibrant and diversity is really, it's one of its treasures. so being part of a department that represents diversity is huge and so important to me that we welcome everyone. and not just face value, truly to integrate to have diversity, have representation not just on the fire fighter level but all levels in this department, all ranks up and down the chain of command. it's huge and it's, stepping in as a woman of color as part of the lgbtq community, means more than just myself, right. i represent more than just

myself. but as a leader, other people in this department, other people in the community that are looking at me and seeing that there is space for them. and so that is really creating space for everyone. >> when i first joined the military, it was still under don't ask don't tell. i had to be super cautious about what i was doing. i was still figuring out what i was doing. i joined when i was 19, i knew i was part of the community i was not accepting yet. my first duty station was officer guam and that's where i got to explore who i was. and being under the umbrella of don't ask don't tell, and having a friend being separated because he was gay. it was very rule. had you to make sure that you were following the rules you

needed to do everything you need today do. i was fortunate to be there when don't ask don't tell was repealed. you find people who are making a big deal about it, the next day everybody went to work like nothing happened. we were accepted and nobody made a big deal about it. work performance was even better because you didn't have to hide something and worry about hiding. the transition from that world into this one is basically the exact same. i was able to just jump in and just you know, not even test the waters. >> i grew up with firefighters, my uncle and cuss infor a volunteer department in canada. here it's quite different, bigger department, a lot of different people. you know, just working with san

francisco i really enjoy having all the different personalities, background, experiences, i'm a pro lead rhyme now. i'm a year into my probation and i'm already finished. and i felt like everybody has brought me in and show me what they know. and regardless of my sexuality, my gender, my race, i was 28 when i decided to change my career and go any different direction. i'm 35 now just starting out in a whole different field. >> san francisco has a large population of lgbtq community in general and our department is reflective on that. the one thing i love about the san francisco fire department, is we do look like the community we serve and we're making every strife to reflect that. so even in our out reach, recruitment efforts, we're trying to make sure that every

single person including the lgbtq community has an opportunity to become a member of our department. soz a subpoena officer, it's important to make sure that i welcome my crew. that includes every single member that is on my apparatus, i feel we can do a better job. >> my dad was a football coach and he taught me to persevere and be committed and i'm showing that i'm doing that. i'm very proud to say that i get to start my career off as a fire fighter for the san francisco fire department. and i'm proud to be who i am, proud to be all the colors that i represent, proud to be, you know, i love being a woman in the department and to feel comfortable with who i am and very secure and excited to come to work.

>> you know, one thing my mom also en grained anything we set our heart to and anything we wanted to do, the only thing stopping us was us. it's my dream to be a fire department member and i'm here, being changed because of who i was and now being able to out and proud of who i am, it's, i feel it should mean something. >> it's important as a san francisco fire fighter, that we understand the community that we serve. it's important that our department is made up of different genders, different ethnicities, different sexual orientations, because the community that we serve need to reflect the apparatus. >> i've seen, i've seen the evolution of this department, i've seen it change through the years. we're in a better place than we were many years ago.

i think we continue to evolve. i'm really hopeful for this next generation of leaders who do smart, determined, lead with heart and i'm hopeful for our future for this department going forward. >> we're your department. we're here for you. we're you and that, and i really believe that san francisco really embodies that. i tell you, it was the greatest decision i ever made. i kept thinking, my gosh if i didn't play softball i wonder if i would have heard about it. it's funny you plan in life and gu to college and you plan your next steps, but the most profound decision nz life, is how you meet people are random. i was meant to be i think and it was such a great fit being that social worker with the ax, that's it.

>> so i see san francisco and san francisco leadership and government as a beacon for the entire country. because we are so up front about what we believe in, we're really up front about inclusivity and i know that, others look at us, many look to us. we've had other departments, contact us in terms of how do you, how do you do this? how do you create a diverse equitable and inclusive workforce? and so, but i would be lying if i said that we don't have any problems in california or in san francisco or in the department. we are out liars, sure? are we doing our best again to address those things with implicit bias training? with changing the culture, our department has made huge huge

leaps as has the city and i really feel like san francisco is part of the solution to moving forward in a better way. people are individuals, there are a lot of different types of people in this world and celebrating our differences is what pride is all about.

>> good evening. this is the fire commission regular meeting april 24, 2024 and the time is 505. this meeting is being held in person. members of the public may attend the meeting to observe and provide public comment at the physical meeting location or by calling 1-415-655-0001, and using meeting id, 26637843927. the webinar password is 1234. insure you are in a quite location, speak clearly and turn off