everything. how do we prevent displacement -- what do you mean, we don't do everything? how do we prevent displacement even as we look at this neighborhood in the future, and i think technically, when you look at an area, we need to focus on what are the tools for people who are cost burdened for home ownership? i think we spent a lot of time thinking about rentalsubsidy or figuring out tools to figure out displacement for people who do not own their homes, which is a different set of tools, but we don't talk enough about how do we prevent displacement for people who do own their homes, and that is actually problematic. i think people tend to think if you own your home, you're all good, but if you're cost burdened, and the data we have here says that 40% of people who own their homes are cost burdened, meaning they pay more than 30% of their household income towards their home costs. we need to be thinking about

that because part of displacement is home values go up, people already feel cost burdened, they feel like they were already kind of on the emgem edges, and so they feel like they need to sell out to take care of their families, and we should be thinking just as much about that as we do of displacement or people that are being evicted from their homes or otherwise forced out. i think that's more the case in this district that maybe is not the case in other places. and finally, the whole confluence of talking about cultural neighborhood and retail, i think those two topics crash together in the excelsior. i understand from this report but also from other information, this area struggles with vacancies, and i think the change in retail and how ground-floor businesses are

able to stay afloat with how the economy is today is something we should be thinking about. we should not only be protecting businesses that are existing and figuring out what we can do to help them stay, but especially as we have newer development going on where there presumably more ground space, how can we preserve that space? i hope we will be able to successfully solve that problem. we have a large immigration problem here, and as we think about other areas of the city that have a stronger, sort of universal notoriety, we should be thinking about what does that mean in the excelsior, and really, not just in name only, but how does a cultural district actually protect what's the essence of a neighborhood and not just, you know, we have one, hooray, but

what does it actually do to protect businesses in the neighborhood? so lots good here. would love to see future answers to some of those problems. again, really honing in on how do we have tools to protect from displacing people who really do own their homes, because that's a large percentage of people in this district. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner melgar? >> commissioner melgar: thank you for that presentation, and not just the presentation, but the process that you've engaged the community in. i've been privy to some of the conversations, and thank you for the respect that you've shown to the community. so i had the pleasure and honor to go on one of the tours of the neighborhood, and i would encourage my fellow commissioners to do the same. it's a slightly different angle. you know, i think that hearing

it from neighborhood residents who are not usually the ones who go to the meetings and are -- or the ones who are invited, you know, and to these spaces is actually really valuable, so i think it is a different perspective, and i think it's a very valuable one. i think it yields better results, so i'm not going to go over some of the things that folks in the community said, because i think the need for affordable housing and all of that -- i did have a few questions about what you're thinking. so particularly around the commercial corridor and then transportation. so this is an area of the city that has one of the highest proportions of children. [ please stand by ]

the youngest to the oldest. how does our pedestrian environment serve those folks? how does our transportation environment serve somebody with a stroller and somebody with a wheelchair and thinking from that perspective. we can get to some of the small things that can make a big difference. curb cuts is a simple thing that we do across the city, with ada, but it allows people of all ages to get around easier. when we think about stores, the retail mix, what are the other services that people would want when they go with their family? is it a type of restaurant, a size, feeling welcome? what makes you feel like, okay, this is a place i can go with my kids. some members have talked about more activitieactivities. and places to are kids to go after school, teenagers, who can maybe be more unsupervised, but

where will they go to feel welcome that's safe for them? those are some of the big ideas in digging into what family-friendly can mean. childcare is huge. it's a huge challenge for the entire city. and i think it connects well with the idea of retail spaces. are there retail spaces, especially new ones, that could be childcare spaces? how do we encourage that more and incentivize more childcare spaces to locate on the corridor it can be challenge to be in that location, but mission childcare is there and they serve 225 students, young people. that's a lot of kids. and so how do we have more of those facilities. >> i had a couple more things. >> yeah. >> i think there's a relationship between density and the health of the corridor. i do think in a lot of places it's appropriate to increase density. i like some of the comments that folks in the community said about one or one, for every

affordable unit, but i do think that's where we, you know, could maximize it. i live in the omi. and that bart station is my station. and it sucks. so my kid used to go to school there and on every given morning, i'm surprised people don't get killed more. people get off of bart. they get on, you know, the k or the 29. they cross the street, where there is no crosswalk to go to city college or to take the k and then people are getting on to the freeway, 280. and then people are transferring to go to san francisco state. and it's hoards of people. i don't know why people don't get killed more in that intersection. it sucks. we'll be adding more units to the balboa reservoir, the other side. and i know that the kids from city college -- young people from city college walk to mission street for lunch.

it's five blocks. there's not a lot of commerce between. that's where the nearest commercial district is, or the other side of ocean. even though it's two different districts, it's a related corridor, ocean avenue. i think a better transportation infrastructure would be a really, really good thing for the commercial, you know, corridor on mission street, even though it's five blocks away. that's how people naturally get around. i'm wondering how you think about that in terms of the corridor. >> when we think about that, it's a starting point. even though phase one is focused on it, it's living in a plain by itself. the two bart stations, especially balboa and the transit resources there are huge. increasing the connectivity for bike and pedestrians, especially on ocean avenue because it's a shorter distance to walk on ocean than it would be to be on geneva, can take the 29, just a few minutes between the bart station and mission street

corridor. so in terms of making it accessible for people, that's a huge priority. there was a couple of years ago the planning department led a study and looking at design improvements along ocean avenue, some of which are implemented, and some need further coordination with other agencies and city college, who has been going through its own machinations of master planning. so if we're not going to limit traffic there, how do we create more space for pedestrians and cyclists. and mta has been looking at san jose and geneva, so just where the barbecue place is right now, on the side where the upper yard will be and thinking about traffic there. >> sorry to interrupt. are there any specific improvements to the muni? i think that's the problem. there are some improvements to the bart station in the last two years and i can see that right

on the street. it's the muni station that is really funky and really inaccessible. you get off bart and have to walk around the block to take the k. >> i think they did do the renovations where you can get on a muni train in the bart station now on the ground floor for one of the lines. but there is on the san jose line and the k, i think they're working on connections. i can get back to you on that. i know there is some construction under way. so you don't have people right now, running into the street to catch the trains. and it's just a matter of time before negative things happen. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards: i've been 3 1/2 years on the commission, and i feel like i'm having an out-of-body experience. if you just scratch excelsior, three years ago, you would put

the word "mission" in there. it's like i'm hearing the exact same recording over and over. now i'm hearing excelsior. we're going to talk about gentrification. people that couldn't afford glenn park went to excelsior and other places in the city. there was an "sf weekly" issue all about the excelsior about how it's arrived and that's probably two years ago. i have a friend who is trying to buy a house and saved and saved and saved and looking in the excelsior and he keeps bidding asking price and keeps getting outbid by people paying over ask in cash. this is the excelsior? working-class neighborhood. it should not be a feeding frenzy, but it is. the good thing about all of

this, you are kind of ahead of the curve. so before events take their course and you get overwhelmed, take the bull by the horns and figure out what you want your neighborhood to be like. and i think that's what this program is about. and i think it's a great start to build upon. and i think this effort could take a clue or a look at what the mission action plan 2020 is or isn't, so you can see exactly -- it's not just a land use solution. it's all kinds of other things. rent control, eviction. mitigation measures, all kinds of things that can help to prevent displacement that are not typically just land use issues. small business. look at the mission action plan. it has about 600 lines of things that -- strategies they want to do to create the neighborhood that they want and we should get a refresh on it in the future to see where we ended.

it's monumental. so work with your supervisor, mr. safai, to figure out what legislation will be required. it will go a lot beyond land use. interestingly enough, as residents say they want a nicer neighborhood. we want all of these little -- i call them chiclets, safety, small business, little tiles, they want a nicer neighborhood and it generates demand for people that say, excelsior is a nice place to molive. i want it move there. it puts pressure on people that live there. and you get a gentrification spiral. it's a tricky thing of creating a balance of a great place to live but keeping the people that live there there because they make the neighborhood. so make sure you get on the right path there.

all housing will not be 100% affordable. we hear this from people in the mission. there is not enough money. a lot of this is private property and we have 40-foot heights. everybody wants 100% affordable, everybody. every neighborhood does. and we -- unless we have a martial plan, we won't be able to have it, but the question is, housing for who? you saw the continuum, but we need housing for all the people that make a neighborhood. building for excelsior is not that much different than in the mission or south of market neighborhoods. a couple of other points,

mr. hooper mentioned he doesn't want stalinist housing. tuesday's "chronicle" talked about 100% affordable housing. john king is an example of design. 100% housing can look really good if you get the right architect and are able to spend some time doing it. i have to go down and look at the building there. and the last thing is, canyon markets, buy rite, same thing. it's the same way. 100 people working there. you trip over people working there and they're all local. and that's a great thing, but other people say, it's gentrification of, we wanted it

to be nice, but not gentrification. we have to figure out both. good job. i can't wait to see what the rest of it looks like. >> commissioner fong: i've been quiet today thus far, but it's interesting, and thank you, staff, for putting these things back to back, because it struck some interesting conversations and big-picture conversation about where san francisco is and about where it wants to go with the change of leadership in the mayor's office. that's a big question for whoever ends up in that seat, where does san francisco want to go? and to some degrees, we're touching a couple of spokes of the wheel here. and in my opinion, what makes san francisco and other cities cooler multigenerational families, whether they're living all together or passed down generations and passing housing down to each other. it keeps the roots and the coolness of the city, whether it's boston, new york, san francisco or whatever.

and that is what makes the neighborhoods and that's what makes excelsior a cool neighborhood. what i think is a little different, and you are right, commissioner richards, the mission was a preview of what we'll see here. it may be a little different in that there's more single-family homes and apartments. what made the mission get taken by storm are the number of apartment buildings there, bart, proximity to downtown, and so this may be a little bit different. but to the planning staff, we have to think about how it will be different. i'm repeating a lot of things that have been said today, but one thing that wasn't said, school systems. and how important that is to whether it's new families coming into san francisco, whether it's old families in san francisco, but not being able to live in your neighborhood and also keep the kids and grow in the school system, part of the foundation,

in my opinion, about the roots of san francisco. i hope that the school system is in lockstep with where we are and that people can grow old in san francisco in so many different ways. so i wanted to share that. today is an interesting conversation on multilevels. >> commissioner moore: to the cool factor, what makes san francisco a great city is activism and public participation in shaping policy and out come. and i think given that you are all involved, even if you have certain reservations, to have a skilled voice, to participate, and shape policy, even if certain parts of the process don't exactly reflect what you are looking for. don't give up.

practice your voice and practice participating in the outcome. i believe that the department is very skilled in the process, that the department is very skilled, in dealing with diverse opinions, with opposition and content. and i believe that you are in the fortunate position to not just react. reaction, as in the mission. the outer mission still has the ability to look ahead and shape and participate. mission 2020 plan is a reaction to what already was extremely difficult situation. it was close to the titanic sinking. in your case, you are observing and you can, indeed, use this time to strongly move forward and i wish all of you luck and i'm interested in continuing to be updated and i thought the presentation was very, very good as a structured piece. >> president hillis: agreed. thank you for the presentation

and the public comment. there seems to be a little bit of a gap as what is here for the aspiration and some of the comments we heard from people who are living there. it's not everybody who participat participated, but there could be more of an emphasis in the aspiration on preservation of neighborhood character, maybe not starting with the change, but we recognize that everything is changing. and we don't see much development in excelsior, but it's facing pressures of affordability and maybe it could be tweaked a bit to focus on displacement and preservation of the neighborhood, as i was reading that. we'll see more of this as it develops and comes in to strategies and where we're going. i think interesting questions about how housing is expanded in that neighborhood. is it different there than in other neighborhoods? we faced this a bit -- is the

zoning off mission rh1 primarily? >> yes. mainly rh1. there's a little bit of rh2 and rm. and then on the commercial corridor -- there's some commercial and then it's 45 on the ground floor and some areas 65. >> president hillis: primarily residential areas are rh1? >> yes. >> president hillis: and i think we want to be cognizant of how that housing stock can be expanded and, you know, we've seen special rules for neighborhoods. maybe this is the type of place for this. so the renting -- the folks that rent are proimary -- primarily renting single-family homes.

it's easier to evict or ellis act a single-family home. so maybe that leads to a policy discussion and how you preserve the rental affordable housing stock even though it's single-family owned. so i think the great thing in the excelsior, one, it's a great neighborhood. i spend a lot of time there, is that large percentage of home ownership. that will help as strategies develop and move forward and we look forward to hearing more. >> commissioner moore: one additional comment. i hope that this particular presentation will be on the web with families to look at and be able to retrace steps on the web, i think that's very powerful. and to the teacher that spoke, i hope you can incorporate some of what is being discussed with

teaching children in all levels of the school system. >> president hillis: thank you very much for the discussion and the public input. >> commissioners, that places us at item 11, 2017-013096map, burnett avenue and burnett avenue north zoning map amendment. >> good afternoon. audrey butkus. proposed would proposed part of the street rm1. it would allow lot 36 to gain

access through two rezoned lots. the owner lot 36 filed a lawsuit against the city and neighboring properties seeking access through easements and the sale of city parcels. the parties have reached a settlement agreement that resolves litigation and allows lot 36 to have access to burnett avenue. the department has received several letters and calls in opposition to the proposed rezoning the majority of the concerns revolve around potential development on the three lots rather than rezoning the parcels themselves. several questions why the parcels were not offered for sale through a public process before being sold to the appellant. the rezone of the two city-owned

parcels is consistent with surrounding zoning and land uses. other options such as constructing the remaining paper portion of burnett avenue north or copper alley or establishing an easement are not feasible. the sale and rezoning of the parcel and burnett north provide an economically feasible solution to the filed lawsuit. >> so no project sponsor on this? >> the project sponsor is technically supervisor sheehy's office, because it's taking place in his district. >> okay. are they here? >> they are not here. >> okay. so we'll open it up to public comment. and i see you are all ready. i have a couple of speaker cards, ross woodle, glenn wyatt and danny merino, but you can speak in any order.

welcome. >> thank you, mr. president, and commissioners. yes, i come here to ask for your consideration to not approve the zoning change for these parcels of land. i know it's in regard to wanting to settle a lawsuit that's been going on for a while. but i do not think that it is in the interests of other homeowners in the area. i personally live at 320 greystone terrace and have lived there for 27 years. the parcels of land that are up for rezoning to rm1 are immediately behind my property and we -- we are very concerned that if it is rezoned and then

the street of burnett street north is built, it will destabilize the entire hillside, which is at a very, very steep angle behind our property. and we do not want to destabilize that. and there are several owners here that worked -- we're from one place, but there are owners from many buildings in that area that would be directly impacted by a street in this sliver of land. we feel it would not be both economically sound, nor would it be environmentally sound or structurally sound. we also feel that, as someone had raised, that these parcels of land should have been offered

for sale to other people rather than just giving one developer a railroad to build a private street for his use or her. my main objection, as i said, is to destabilization of twin peaks, which is in many people's interests. i live in twin peaks and would rather not end up in upper market. so please reconsider the recommendation of city attorney guerrera and reject this change in zoning. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is danny marino, i'm here on behalf of myself and my

partner, who just spoke. thank you to the planning commission for having this public hearing and allowing me to express my concerns about this passionate issue. ross and i are property owners living at 320 greystone for 27 years. we want to be very clear about what we want. we don't want the adjacent property to be rezoned and have any type of construction on that property. our concerns are construction building will destroy nature in its natural beauty. for me, it's very therapeutic to look out the back windows to see nature racial than a slab or buildings or vehicles. a street on that lot would create vehicle access, poor air quality from vehicle pollution. and the other issue that i would

be concerned about is unsafety to the neighborhood and to us. the city already protects green areas throughout the city. there are many parks that i noticing. there's a mini park at clayton and corbett, 367 corbett avenue, and another at danvers and market. these are close to where we live. so i'm not sure that -- these seem very similar, so i would like to just ask the planning commission to do the right thing and keep this area green, protect this area like you protected the other green areas for the appreciation of all people concerned and not one individual that can profit from this. please do the right thing. no rezoning or construction. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hi.

i'm ben wyatt. i live at 322 greystone terrace, adjacent to the proposal of the rezoning. i want to state my opposition to the rezoning. this is the first step in the sale of the land to a neighbor. this will cause a loss of habitat and possible hillside erosion, which will cause the hillside to slide into my building and possibly down the hill. i understand the running for the sale of the land directly behind my house, i don't understand why it wasn't offered to me for sale. and just to the other developer. and if the city does have to sell the land, i feel it should be offered to the affected neighbors. this land is directly behind our house. if i look up, it's right there.

i don't understand why this would -- it's directly there, like it should have been offered. i can walk up to it. so i ask the commission to change their preliminary recommendation from approve to disapprove, so there's more of an opportunity for us to -- if the eventual sale is going to happen, there should be an opportunity for us to have a sale with what's happening to land directly touching our property. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david priest. i am -- pardon me -- the president of the homeowners association of 275 burnett avenue, which is a development that is just slightly to the north of the proposed area of

the -- proposed merging and sale of the proposed properties. we're two properties north. we're not opposed to the sale and merger as proposed, but we do have one suggestion and observation about the geography of the property. and that is, there's a paper street immediately to the north of the three parcels in question. the paper street is copper alley. it's undeveloped at this time. and our suggestion and our hope as you consider the merging of the properties, the parcels, as a concession to the neighborhood and the public good, that the development of copper alley into a staircase that connects burnett and corbett, be linked to the approval of this proposal. that's because there is a

1/2-mile distance between the vertical distance and that would be right in the middle of that, providing much-improved access of neighbors along burnett and for downward access towards muni and up to twin peaks. so our strong suggestion is, as you consider this reasonable proposal to link the three parcels into one for purposes of sale, that you also link it to the development of this staircase for the public good. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we will close it to public comment. ms. butkus, can you put up the map of the parcels? >> absolutely.

>> president hillis: so the dark area is the owner with the agreement -- >> right. the outline in dashed lines is the proposed vacated portion and the crescent-shaped the one owned by sf-pac. >> president hillis: and those pieces will be sold -- >> will be sold if the settlement goes through. >> president hillis: is the settlement contingent on this zoning change? >> yes. >> president hillis: and right now, that parcel has no access to a street? >> correct. burnett avenue north portion

that's been built is a private driveway to the north. and the portion to the south has not been built. there's a very steep slope on that portion of the land. so simply connecting it to burnett avenue would create a steeply sloping lot that would require some very crafty engineering solutions. >> can you point that out? >> sure, absolutely. so to connect this portion of burnett avenue north has been built, but it's a private driveway owned and managed by the hoa right here. so the original proposal was to have the property owner connect to the private drive to then off access to burnett avenue north. it's such a steeply sloping portion of land that to connect with a short driveway extension,

first of all, the hoa was against that. and second of all, it would create such a steep slope it would prove almost engineeringly impossible for a car to access that driveway. only feasible way is to cut into burnett north and crescent-shaped parcel. >> commissioner koppel: to what extent could this parcel be brought out to or what is rm1 and zoning in this parcel specifically. >> what the zoning restrictions are for rm1, it's no more than three units, three dwelling units per parcel or one per 800 square feet of lot area. so it would be held to the same restrictions in addition to the

neighborhood notification, whether they conduct a lot merger or not. >> commissioner koppel: so you could separately build or is the intent to merge it? >> the intent was not made clear by the appellant, so the appellant could move forward to merge the parcels or they could keep them separate. >> commissioner koppel: what is the maximum build-out? >> it will be dictated by many factors including residential design guidelines. there would be a 40-foot height limit and 3-unit per lot and/or one unit for 800 square feet. >> president hillis: how big is the parcel -- if you combine the three parcels? >> the appellant's current

parcel, the gray slice, is before 2,291. the crescent-shaped parcel is 4,500 square feet. and i don't have an accurate measurement on the paper portion of burnett avenue. >> president hillis: were the neighbors consulted with how this could impact? >> i will leave that to the city attorney's office since i was not involved with that. >> rob capla. the suit was against the city and the neighboring hoa. they've signed on to the settlement agreement. >> but some of the neighborhoods were from greystone. >> correct.

>> so currently we're tasked with -- we're not approving a lot merger -- >> correct. all you are voting on today is whether or not the two parcels should be zoned to rm1. any lot merger or development would have to come back to all the appropriate bodies afterwards. >> what happens to copper alley? >> it's unaffected. >> it remains a public paper street? >> a portion of copper alley is built as a stairwell. the other portion is not built. so it would not be affected. >> it doesn't look like it goes all the way up. >> it does not. >> it doesn't? >> no. >> i don't think that's correct. i think it goes up. >> it goes up to the paper, which is being sold to the neighbor.

>> commissioner johnson: i read the report and i'm a little -- i have two questions. the sale of paper burnett and the puc site will be done how? is the sale to the appellant part of the settlement? >> correct. >> okay. >> the settlement is contingent on the rezoning of the partialles. the appellant has agreed to buy the parcels to have access. >> sorry. the report said sold to a private property. it didn't say, sold to the appellant. the other thing, what was the analysis behind the zoning to rm1? >> sure. so the appellant's current parcel, the one that he currently owns, is rm1 already, therefore, it would be most consistent to zone the two parcels he will be purchasing to the same zoning that he has on a

neighboring property. i have a zoning map here if that helps. >> commissioner johnson: that's helpful. there's one in here, too. >> so rm1 zoning is consistent with this area, as you can see. >> commissioner johnson: so -- i see it. before this then, the zone public was sort of not really in keeping with a lot of the land in that area? >> the sf-puc parcel -- correct. it was zoned public, but i believe 20 years ago it was determined by the sf-puc not to use that land for whatever public purpose they had for it before. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm still -- i feel like -- and that's the analysis of the only options. i know in the case report, it sort of says that the staff

looked at how else to achieve the goals of the settlement and one was to -- can you explain those again? it was unclear to me why there was a couple of options and you said it was unfeasible. if you can go through those options again. >> absolutely. the first option looked at was installing an extension of the staircase or the public sidewalk along copper alley to connect burnett avenue to greystone terrace. unfortunately again, the slope of the lot becomes a problem. it would not only have to be a very interesting engineering solution that would need to be found to create that access, but you would also have to do this with additional agencies coming in. >> that is not a roadway, right? >> right. it's only a sidewalk.

it's a pedestrian walkway. >> commissioner johnson: yes. >> and in addition, the connection had budget issues, liability issues. what were some of the other options that you had a question about? >> commissioner johnson: i think that was -- there were two on here. consideration all options on page 2. >> oh, right. the other option was allowing the -- connecting the driveway directly to the hoa's private driveway. that's part of the reason that the suit came about. it is a private driveway, not a public street. we don't have the ability to mandate that. the hoa didn't want the connection to take place. they didn't want this particular property owner to connect his driveway to their private drive and on top of that even if they were not opposed to it the engineering with the slope to not have to cross over at least a portion of burnett avenue,

paper street and sf huff puc parcel would have been very difficult to do, which leads to the third option, which would have been to only provide an easement on burnett avenue north and sf-puc. however, dpw has a financial requirement to their taxpayers to get the most fair value for their land and to cut a portion of this off would not be getting them that option because it would render the rest of the land unusable. so i cannot go into the specifics of that, because i'm not dpw, but that's why it was told to us as not an option by sf-puc and dpw. >> commissioner johnson: so sf-puc and dpw are the reason we're rezoning rm1? >> well, the property owner needs access to their land and

this seems to be the most feasible option. >> what about a swap of the current parcel well the puc parcel? i'm not trying to redo the settlement, but were things like that considered? >> many options were considered. it's the puc parcel. they must get maximum value. they cannot split a parcel and have a portion that's basically useless on the market. from the puc's perspective, if they're going to sell a surplus asset, they're going to sell it at the highest value, which includes the dpw parcel being thrown in at the same time. when you have a larger parcel thrown together, it's a higher value. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm glad we got that clear. i think the piece that was missing for me is the reason that we cannot provide the

easement, so i got it. >> and i should clarify, the reason why it's going to rezone technically, it's standard practice that the unzoned would take -- so it would transfer the property to the plaintiff in this case. and standard practice is that it would not remain public, or we would have to face this issue or rezone it. it is happening before or at the same time as the transfer. we would be going to the abutting zoning. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i'm just about ready to make a motion, but one last question. these things are challenging. we don't have too many of these, but we do sometimes have settlement deals, where there's a deal struck and then the last piece is, we've to make a decision which is not really a decision because they've made the decision for us, i guess. so -- my question is, was the

planning department with the city attorney or -- >> we were referred this settlement the way we would any proposed zoning that was sponsored by a supervisor. so this proposed solution was provided to us as a proposed zoning map amendment. >> commissioner johnson: okay. >> kate stacy from the city attorney's office. if the commission wants to make recommendations of a different zoning designation for these parcels that made sense to the commission, the commission could certainly recommend that the parcels be rezoned differently. i think the map that you saw there were other zoning designations in the area. it's like any rezoning. if the commission thought that some other rezoning was

appropriate, you could certainly recommend that to the board of supervisors. >> commissioner johnson: yeah, i mean, if the whole purpose is just to provide easement, i wonder why can't we rezone it to p and -- it's already public, but owned by -- i guess that doesn't make sense. i take that back. what are the other options? >> again, the other options that were considered in the settlement, which are in the case report, just didn't seem nearly as feasible for what is on the table. >> commissioner johnson: okay. >> does the settlement -- it's a large parcel that comes out of this, if you merge it. and does the settlement agreement address that at all? i could see wanting from a planning perspective to somehow

configure the remaining lot that comes out of here and not kind of leave that up to future, you know, discretion of -- we don't have control over lot mergers. dpw does. in zoning, that's my concern. you end up -- i don't know what would be built on this. and maybe we could get at that more by a combination of zoning in the parcels that come out of this. and i don't know if the settlement agreement contemplates or just leaves it up to the future property owner what this parcel would look like. >> there is no requirement for the property owner to subject plans for the three parcels if the settlement passes. i believe the only condition is that he cannot sell it as another isolated parcel, so we don't run into this problem in the future. but that's correct. if he were to apply for a parcel

merger without a development application, that would not be seen by the planning commission, but because of the steep slope of the lot, at the bare minimum, it would go through a ceqa evaluation and general plan priorities would come to us and any development would be subject to at the bare minimum 311 notification. >> right. i don't know if i'm prepared to vote on this today. i would like to know more about the result of our zoning decision and what it could lead to. what we think logically it would lead to. if you have a parcel that's zoned p in a pretty consistent 25x100-foot neighborhood, you kind of know what will happen. i don't know what's going to happen here. it's an odd lot. it's steeply sloping. probably would have the development on the burnett side, but i don't really know. and maybe you want to split it

into two lots. it would be great to get -- i don't know if i can vote on this today. i don't quite have a firm handle on everything that's happening. >> through the chair, first of all, you either vote on this today or it goes directly to the board, because the 90-day time limit is over and they didn't express a willingness to hold off on it. and the other thing is, you could probably -- could probably be sub divided into three lots and then you would do three on each for that, in a more direct, linear way. or you could merge the lots and it would be one per 800-square-foot lot area. >> and what would that be? >> again, the appellant's current parcel is 2,300 and the

puc is 4,500. and the other, i don't have the -- >> you have some steep slope development. i think if we could get more information, it would make me more comfortable about being able to vote on this. >> commissioner richards: so, staff, 1/4 mile away at roosevelt and 17th, there's a serpentine rock outcropping that's at a 60 degree angle. would that be a similar leap of faith that that could happen here? >> certainly in this zoning that's conceivable. it's very steeply sloped, but there are other places in the

city that are steeply sloped that could be developed. it's a question 7 -- of the engineering solution. >> i see on our packets, january 24. >> yes, it must have been extended. you have until january 24. >> commissioner richards: i think i would like to find out what could be developed there. i've been getting a lot of communication with other neighbors and so it could come back and i want to understand that. >> housing can be developed here. we know between 9 and 12 units of housing can be developed on this parcel. >> commissioner richards: sure. >> what more do you need to know more? >> president hillis: we're just getting that now. would you recommend a different configuration of the lot? on this side of burnett, there

tends to be development on every lot. and on the other side, it's open space and twin peaks. i think the neighborhoods should understand what will happen, the ones on greystone right behind here. i don't think they should get -- it's not like it's going to be open space. i think we need to understand what that rm zoning can do on a lot like this. >> i have a chart if that makes anybody feel better. >> commissioner richards: maybe a little. >> commissioner johnson: i was going to say, you were saying that the 60-day time is that -- >> i corrected myself. it's january 24. they did a 30-day extension. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i was going to say, then let the board decide. it's board-sponsored.

planning legislation. theres wi s wits wit s wits wit settlement. we have talked about how the planning department was or was not involved in the process. if that's the deal that everyone has struck, i think we should go with that. and if we want to add anything to it, that's fine, like maybe a condition that, you know, lot merger be prevented or something. i don't know. i don't know what else we would need to hear. there's lawsuit, settlement, supervisor has sponsored legislation. we should move it forward and not be a roadblock in the process. >> commissioner koppel: do you mind putting the zoning chart up again? >> absolutely. i will not be able to fit it all in one section, but i will move it around. this is for rm zoning. to start, you have the three

dwelling units per lot or one per 800 square feet of lot area. that's all that's allowed as a maximum. for the minimum, you have a width of 25 feet and an area of 2, 500 square feet. for the basic ratio, not applicable here. and for the front setback requirements, based on the average of adjacent properties, up to 15 feet or 15% of the lot. same thing for rear yard. it would be 45% of the lot depth, with some exception. for the usable open space requirement, it would be 100 square feet per unit.

and, again, with exceptions there. and then for any other special requirements, we have -- there is limits on parking and parking facades and ebbing west real -- ebbi equestrian sites. >> and so even though it's "low density," it has higher density as opposed to rh2. so i'm leaning towards approving rm1. if and when the appallent could look at lot merger, then maybe we could have them approve the stairwell or retrofit that.

>> commissioner moore: the only question that comes to mind is that the lot merger makes a new parcel very, very large. it's almost four times as large as it was on the onset. wouldn't somebody make lot cuts, which would make sense given the development pattern that would be a win-win for everybody. by creating the large lot, the value of the lot as far as -- undervalued, relative to what you do if you do it smartly. and in terms of equity, if i live in this neighborhood, i would ask for replotting of the entire thing, where everybody would win, including continuing